1 2025:CGHC:34205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 538 of 2025 Juvenile In Conflict With Law (Details of Applicant is enclosed in a closed envelope attached to this memo of revision) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O Police Station Batouli, District Surguja (C.G) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 18/07/ 2025 1. The victim along with her father appeared virtually through concerned DLSA before this Court today and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.18 18:36:02 +0530 2 Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short“the Act,2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Surguja Ambikapur in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025, upholding the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 09/2025 registered at Police Station Batouli, District Surguja (C.G.) for offence punishable U/s 64(2)(m), 351(2), 115(2), 137(2), 87 & 96 of BNS and U/s 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, the victim's father lodged a written report in the police station Batouli on 12.01.2025 to the effect that his 16-year-old daughter/victim was lured and kidnapped by the applicant and taken to Delhi. On 08.01.2025, when the victim returned home, on enquiry, she told that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage, on 03.11.2024, for the first time near Primary School Shivpur, forcibly committed a wrong act (rape) with the victim and since then has been continuously having physical relations with her. On the said complaint lodged by the victim's father, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 3 applicant has falsely implicated in the crime in question. Father of the applicant has passed away. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is aged about 17 years and he is in the observation home since 13.01.2025. He further submits that 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 of the applicant. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail and submits that at the time of incident the victim was minor. However, the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he has no criminal antecedent. 6. 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 4 would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 7. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer states 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. 8. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional 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. 9. 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 Shubham