1 2025:CGHC:29090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 365 of 2025 ABC (Details Is Kept In Envelop) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 30/06/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.01 15:05:51 +0530 2 impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.10/2025 upholding the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.422/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari for the offence punishable under Sections 109 (1), 103(1) of BNS 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a case has been registered against the child/applicant at said Police Station that on the night of 02.11.2024, at around 10:00 PM, near Calcutta Photo Studio, Old Bus Stand, Dhamtari, he caused grievous and fatal injuries to the chest of one Yuvraj Nag with a sharp-edged knife in his possession, resulting in Yuvraj Nag’s death. Further, he also attempted to commit the murder of another victim, Neeraj Nag, by repeatedly attacking him with the intention to kill, inflicting grievous injuries on his abdomen, shoulder, and waist. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no likelihood of his release would bring him into 3 association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there was a main role of the applicant in the incident. He is a main accused aged about 17 years 11 months. Apart from the applicant, there is 1 other juvenile and 3 major accused in this case. Weapon used in the crime i.e. Knife, has been seized from the applicant. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. The State Counsel further submits that as per ‘social status report’ of the applicant, the child is not of a delinquent nature. The juvenile in conflict with law, was used by the adults for the commission of the alleged offence. The said juvenile was incited by these adults to commit the act of assault. The offence appears to have been orchestrated by the adults who exploited the child to carry out the assault and cause harm. 5. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a child alleged to be in conflict with law should be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the 4 supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The only embargo created is that in case the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 6. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. The Appellate Court has rejected the applicant's appeal, considering that the applicant, a juvenile, was shown to be the main accused in the incident. The court relied on evidence of his presence at the crime scene and his role in the commission of the offense, warranting no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, thereby affirmed the said order. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly as per prosecution, the applicant is the main accused from whom the knife was seized, and taking into account the applicant's role in the incident and the involvement of three other major co-accused, I find that 5 releasing the applicant on bail would likely pose a moral and psychological danger to him and undermine the interests of justice. Consequently, I discern no perversity, illegality, or inconsistency in the findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court that would warrant interference. 9. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Considering the age of the applicant and the nature of the crime, the Juvenile Justice Board should consider under Section 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham