1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 530 of 2025 Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 27/06/ 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 impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Court/2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No.H-09/2025 upholding BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.28 15:24:29 +0530 2 the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.529/2024 registered at Police Station Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 109, 3(5) BNS was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.11.2024, the applicant along with other co-accused assaulted the injured Deepak Dewangan by sharp and pointed object causing grievous injuries to him and used obscene language with him. 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 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 the applicant is below 16 years and there are 3 criminal antecedents against him and from perusal of the social status report of 3 the applicant it is clear that continuous counselling of the applicant is necessary and 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 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 appeal of the applicant on the ground that in the report of the District Child Protection Officer, it has been stated that the child is involved in many criminal cases and he is not disciplined towards his family members and this is his fourth visit to the remand home in different cases. Therefore, he needs 4 continuous counseling and proper care. The possibility of physical and psychological danger to the child cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. By keeping him in an observation home, he will benefit from child welfare schemes and regular counseling and moral values will develop in him. The Probation Officer also has the same suggestion. 8. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the Probation Officer, previous record of the juvenile and the overall nature of the crime, it is found that if the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him in moral and psychological danger and the object of justice would be defeated. 9. Consequently, this Revision has no merits 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 Khatai