1 2025:CGHC:31380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 559 of 2025 1 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law S/o Xyz, R/o- Abc, Since Minor, Through His Father- Xyz, R/o- Abc ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/07/2025 The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15/2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of order dated 05.02.2025 SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.10 11:27:34 +0530 2 passed in Criminal Case No.527/2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari dismissing the bail application of the present applicant. 2. This is the revision petition filed by the accused, who is juvenile. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.12.2024, the complainant Omkar Sahu lodged a complaint at PS.Kurud alleging that the applicant along with co-accused persons had killed the deceased Kartik Ram Patel, friend of the complainant. It is alleged that deceased Kartik Ram and his friends namely Omkar Sahu, Sanjay Sahu, Devendra Sahu and Dhaneshwar Nishad had looted two sacks of rice from the house of one Bhikham Sahu and were caught by the villagers and beaten by them with hands fists and sticks on account of which Kartik died at about 1230 pm in the District Hospital, Dhamtari. On the basis of investigation, FIR was registered against 13 persons including the present applicant and three days after the incident, on the basis of CCTV footage and statements, other accused persons were apprehended. There were total 31 accused persons and the present applicant was arrested on 27.12.2024. The juvenile filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 05.02.2025. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 3 of the Act of 2015. She further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the applicant has not committed the crime and there is no evidence on record to prove that he has in any way involved in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the court below is against the social information report and is based on surmises and conjectures. It has been further submitted that there is no evidence to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, his 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. No such findings were recorded as to how he will come in contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. She submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in custody 27.12.2024 and therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail. 4. Counsel for the State submits that the orders passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the record including the social status report, which 4 is in favour of the applicant, I do not find any reasonable ground having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Police Authorities in respect of the so called threat of the juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or coming in the company of known criminal. 7. In view of above consideration, the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 could not be sustained and is therefore, set aside. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, by the parents or guardians of the applicant, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board, as and when directed. 8. The revision is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge