1 2025:CGHC:28682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 599 of 2025 ABC (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And The Name Of Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Chirmiri District - Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Adv. 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 24.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (under POCSO Act), Chirmiri, District Koriya (CG) in Criminal Appeal Case No.31/2025, upholding the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Principal Judge of Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.28 15:24:54 +0530 2 (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.10/2025 whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.8/2025 registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District – Koriya (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act was rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 08.02.2024, the applicant took the minor victim with him to Podi, then to his village Lai and kept her with him for two days. On 10.02.2024, he took the victim to Baikunthpur, where he committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is about 16 years old, he is in the observation home since 03.04.2025. The social status report is also in favour of applicant. 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. The learned trial Court has 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 was also involved in the crime in question. However, the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he has no criminal antecedents. He also submits that the age of the applicant is about 16 years. 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 3 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. Be that as it may, a social status report has been submitted by the concerned Probation Officer and a bare perusal of it would show that the conduct of the applicant is good. The applicant and the victim met through Instagram and used to talk on mobile phone. As per the parents and sister of the applicant, the victim took the applicant with her to Baikunthpur where they stayed for about 15-20 days. The applicant went out of the house in the name of eating Phulki without telling anyone and when he was returning home, the police caught him and took to the police station. 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. Both the Courts have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Upper 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 4 bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card 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. 8. 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 Khatai