1 2025:CGHC:13989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 383 of 2025 ABC R/o Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/03/2025 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the Juvenile-ABC under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act read with Section 438(1) and Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Appeal No.03/2025, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Children’s Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the bail application of the Juvenile-ABC has been dismissed. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR 2 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 28-11-2024, the complainant lodged the complaint before the police station, Lormi alleging that at night about 10 PM, when he was standing near the pan shop along with his friends, there the present applicant along with his other friends came and asked his friend Umesh Dhruv to come with him, but when he refused to go with them, the present applicant and his friends started abusing him and his friends and threatening them to kill and in the meanwhile the applicant assaulted the complainant with knife due to which the complainant sustained injury in his back (buttock). Subsequently the complainant lodge complaint against the present applicant. 3. Based on the complaint, the police registered the crime bearing crime No.453/2024 against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act and send it before the Child Protection Center, District Mungeli (C.G). Subsequently thereafter the police filed chargesheet before the concerned court. 4. Subsequently, the applicant preferred a bail application under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Lormi, District Mungeli which was dismissed on 11-12-2024. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal against the order dated 11-12-2024 before the Appellate Court which was also dismissed by the Learned Court vide its order dated 10- 02-2025. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and he has nothing to do with the incident. The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court has completely ignored 3 to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which itself is peri meteria of Section 12 of Act 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of Act 2015. He further contended that the applicant is a student and due to his confinement, there will be a negative effect in his mind and it will be seriously harmful for rest of his life. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be please set-aside the order dated 10-02-2025 (Annexure A-1) and be pleased to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile-ABC and submits that as per report of Office of the Thana Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.), there are three previous antecents of the present applicant registered under the Crime No. 264/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No.200/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Crime No.226/2024 for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the documents would show that on the date of incident, the complainant made a report before the police station stated that when he was standing near the Paan Center with his friends, at 10.00 pm, three boys from Lormi came and asked the applicant's friend Umesh Dhruv to come with them, then the Juvenile-applicant abused the complainant and threatened to kill him 4 and hit him on the hip with a knife. Further considering that there are three previous antecedents against the applicants. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and looking to the gravity of offence which is of a serious in nature. Further considering the age of the revisioner, it shows that if the applicant is released on bail, he may again come in contact with those co- accused persons/known criminals and he released on bail, he may again commit any henious offence and may cause danger to the society. Hence, considering all these circumstances giving bail to the revisioner would be a miscarriage of justice. 9. In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below and release the revisioner on bail. 10.Accordingly, the instant revision filed by the applicant, is rejected. 11. Consequently, the present CRR stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant