1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 423 of 2025 Xyz (in custody) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sunita Manikpure, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 04/08/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.107/2025 upholding the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 575/2024 whereby the bail application of the applicant for grant of bail in Crime No.617/2024 registered at P.S. Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence u/s 103(1), 3(5) of B.N.S. and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, was rejected. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.06 18:47:35 +0530 2 2. (i) The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Ishwar Ram Rajwade and Vivek Rajwada were both drivers of authorized government vehicles who had brought their respective bosses from Ambikapur to Raipur. Ishwar Ram Rajawada left his boss at Punit Hotel Pandri and Vivek Rajwada left his boss at Guest House Krishi College. Thereafter both the drivers came to Guest House Krishi College for night rest. Deceased Ishwar Ram Rajwada woke up on 23.09.2024 at 3.15 a.m., and after getting up Vivek Rajwada, the deceased Ishwar said that he was unable to sleep and let them go to Marine Drive and have tea. Both came to Marine Drive on a Scooty and were talking while sitting on the platform of Marine drive. (ii) At that time at about 3.40 a.m., the present applicant Juvenile along with other accused came there on a scooter and two boys got down and came to the victim Ishwar and Vivek and told them that petrol was exhausted in their scooter and asked for Rs. 50/-, on which, deceased Ishwar and Vivek said that they have come wearing lower T-Shirt and they do not have any money. The accused said that there must be money in their mobiles and asked the victim Ishwar and Vivek to show their mobiles, and the accused will check it and by saying this, they took out a buttoned knife from their possession and by threatening the two drivers took the mobile of victim Ishwar and sat on the scooter whereas the present applicant “xyz” apprehended Vivek by showing knife. When the two boys sitting on the scooter tried to escape, deceased Ishwar Rajwade caught hold of the scooter and made them fall down. Meanwhile, one of the accused Suraj Nayak, came running and stabbed Ishwar 3 - 4 times with a knife. The juvenile “xyz” and Rohit Baghel, who had fallen from scooter, got up and juvenile “xyz” assaulted the deceased by knife carried by juvenile whereas the other accused Rohit Baghel assaulted with hands, slaps and kicks. When the deceased Ishwar Rajwade fell down in a pool of blood, the accused, ran-away on scooter. [ 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has no criminal antecedents. There is no likelihood of his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, 3 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 the eye-witness Vivek has seen the applicant in committing the crime and knife was seized from him. He is aged about 17 years. There were two other major co-accused persons involved in the crime in question and they are also in jail. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 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. 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 there is a possibility of his exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger. The Appellate Court also recorded the fact knife was seized from the present applicant and if the applicant is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. It appears from the case diary, the Juvenile “xyz” is accused of committing a grue-some murder. In this case, two other major accused are alleged to be involved alongwith the Juvenile. According to the Social Status Report, the child is in bad company. Under the circumstances, if the juvenile is released on bail, there is likelihood of his coming into association with unknown criminals or exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 8. Releasing a juvenile boy who has committed a heinous crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice, especially if his release is found to be against the best interests of society and the victim's family. The Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the need for 4 rehabilitation of juveniles with the need for justice, but in cases of extreme violence, the "ends of justice" provision in the law can be invoked to deny the bail as his release would lead to public outcry and a feeling that justice has not been served. 9. Having regard to the above facts situation, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revision. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, looking to the long detention of the juvenile, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible. Sd/- S (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao