1 2025:CGHC:20033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 422 of 2025 1 - A Juvenile Conflict With Law. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 01.05. 202 5 1. The Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 05-03-2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2025 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Act of 2015’) is dismissed and the order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, dated 29-01-2025 in Crime No. 375/2024 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Dhamtari, is affirmed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is admittedly a juvenile and has been in observation home since 17-10-2024. It is further submitted that, as per Section 12 of the Act of 2015, for the purpose of releasing the juveniles on bail, the Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.05.22 13:21:58 +0530 2 gravity of the offence is not to be seen. It is also submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned appellate Court have dismissed the application for bail on the merits of the case, but the merits of the case would be of no relevance while considering the bail application of the juveniles. He would further submit that the petitioner’s stay in the observation home would affect his future prospects. There is no possibility that after releasing him on bail, he will again come in association of criminal persons, or there is no reason to believe that release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release is to defect the ends of justice. Therefore, the juvenile petitioner may be released on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner it is not a fit case where the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the State also referred to the report of the concerned observation home. He would further submit that although merits and gravity of offence would not be relevant for consideration of bail application of a juvenile, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, releasing the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice as the victim party is apprehending untoward incident from the petitioner therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for releasing on bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition as well as the case diary. 3 5. Before considering the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate if Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 is taken into consideration and for ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinunder:- “Section 12:(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non- bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” 6. A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a matter of routine, in case an accused person happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained, and is brought before the Board, such person notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other special law which is in force should be released on bail. But at the same time the latter part of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual background of a case if it appears to the Court that releasing of said juvenile can bring him into association of the company with which he landed himself in the remand home, or he may get exposed to moral and psychological danger, as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that upon his release from the observation home can lead to exposing the juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may refuse to release the juvenile on bail. 4 7. In order to examine whether any of three exceptions of Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 is present in the case, social status report of the petitioner was called for by this Court, and a copy of their social status report dated 29.03.2025 of the petitioner is also available in the case diary. 8. From perusal of the social status report of the petitioner, it appears that the social and economic condition of the petitioner’s family is satisfactory, and the parents of the petitioner are concerned about the future of the juvenile petitioner. His behaviour is good with his inmates; he denied the commission of the offence. The cause of delinquency is lack of proper guidance. His involvement in the offence is doubtful. It is clear from the social status report of the petitioner that the same is self- contradictory. It cannot be said that the parents of the juvenile have concerns about the future, as he committed an act depicting criminal tendency. It cannot be said to be such an act done in a sudden spurt of anger. The petitioner had assaulted the injured Shubham @ Bunty Yadav with a knife 5-6 days back, and he was admitted to the hospital for treatment. When the present complainant coming back from the hospital along with his friends, near City Garden, the petitioner assaulted the complainant Himanshu Sahu by knife, on the earlier dispute by which, the injured received 6-7 injuries on his abdomen, back and other parts of the body. The manner in which he acted and committed the offence cannot be said to be the act done in the heat of anger. The parent of petitioner were not concerned with the welfare of the child, who, instead of promoting him to go school, did not take him care and left him for roaming having knife. In this situation, if the petitioner, who is a juvenile in conflict with the law, is released from the observation home and sent to the same socioeconomic atmosphere, 5 he would be exposed to moral and psychological dangers. Further, the risk of juvenile committing such offence in future is also likelihood. I do think the gravity of the offence is nowhere concerned with the consideration of bail application of a juvenile in conflict with the law, but to consider the interest of justice, it does have some bearing. Moreover, against the petitioner, another offence of Crime No. 123/2023 is registered at City Kotwali, Dhamtari, for the offence under Section 294, 506, 34 of IPC, which further shows his criminal tendency. 9. Although the bail may be a rule but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, where the alleged incident has been committed against the complainant, release of the juvenile petitioner on bail would definitely defeat the ends of justice. One of the exceptional circumstances wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, is that, in case, “the release would defeat the ends of justice”. Justice is not a one-way street, which is only to be appreciated from the point of view of the juvenile in conflict with the law. It is also a concept that would be alive both for the complainant and for society at large. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, it cannot be said that the juvenile petitioner is immature. The nature of offence and the manner in which it has been committed, his conduct does come under the exception of “defeat the ends of justice”. 10. In the instant case, taking into consideration the report of the Probationary Officer as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is all chances of his exposing to moral as well as 6 psychological danger and his release would “defeat the ends of justice”. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the facts as well as law which does not warrant any interference at its juncture. The present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 but would fall within the exception carved out in the said Section. 12. Accordingly, no good case has been made out for allowing the revision petition calling for interference with the order under challenge. 13. The Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder