1 2025:CGHC:26402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 398 of 2025 1 - Xyz Nil ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhansabha, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20/06/ 202 5 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2025, upholding the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.20 18:22:26 +0530 2 Justice Board, Mana Camp Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 709/2024 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 190, 191(3) of B.N.S., 2023. (as per charge sheet). 2. As per the prosecution case, on 18.11.2024, the complainant lodged a report to the concerned police station alleging therein that on the date of incident, the unknown persons have assaulted Rohit Sagar, Ram Sona and Mohit Ram Jangde by means of knife due to the said assault Rohit Sagar died during treatment and Ram Sona and Mohit Ram Jangde sustained grievous injuries. It is alleged against the applicant that on the date of offence, i.e. 18.11.2024, the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, also assaulted the deceased and the injured persons. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant along with other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated as the applicant was standing near the spot of occurrence. In this case, there are total 16 accused persons out of which 14 persons are major and 2 persons are minor, including the present applicant. The 3 applicant is about 15 years old, he is in the observation home since 16.01.2025. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the present applicant and there is no overact of the applicant. There is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. The learned Court below 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 the grant of bail and submits that the applicant was also involved in the crime in question. However, the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he has no criminal antecedents. He also submits that the age of the applicant is 15 years. 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 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. 4 6. Be that as it may, a social status report dated 14.02.2025 was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer and a bare perusal of it would show that the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The Courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Upper Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card 5 full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the trial Court. 8. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu