1 2025:CGHC:36191 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 690 of 2025 Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nil ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Government Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. This revision is filed by the juvenile under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 444/2024 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur, Chhattisgarh has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal Case No.400/2024 relating to Crime No. 286/2024 registered at P.S. Amanaka, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishavle u/ss 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 whereby the bail application of the present applicant has been rejected. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.28 18:40:23 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Dilip Nayak had informed to the Police that he came to know from few children that one dead body of unknown person is lying near at Dumar Talab near M.B.P.L. Ground, upon which, the police inspected the placed and found that dead body was in decomposed condition. On such information, the Police registered a Merg report and FIR against unknown person u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023. During investigation, the applicant who is aged about 13 years and 9 months and two other juvenile offenders were made accused, against whom the charge sheet was filed. Since the present applicant was juvenile, he filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the juvenile is in detention since 29.7.2024 and there is no eye-witness to the incident and only on the basis of last seen theory developed in the statement of Latish Kumar, the applicant has been roped in and there is no incriminating evidence available against the applicant to connect him with the crime in question. He submits that the social status report is not against the juvenile and both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the position of law and have declined bail to the applicant. 4. He submits that 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 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant had no criminal back-ground and the orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits that 3 in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and looking to the long detention of the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that juvenile is accused of committing murder of one Naresh Chandrakar and apart from the applicant, two other juveniles are also involved in the offence. She submits that from the memorandum statement of Latish Kumar, the fact has emerged that the deceased was last seen with the applicant. She further submits that T-Shirt was recovered from the present applicant which contains blood. Therefore, 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. According to the social status report, the child belongs to a lower middle class family and he is currently studying in School and a simple incident has turned into a heinous crime and there is no possibility of applicant’s coming into association of other known criminals and thus the report suggests to provide protection to the child under family supervision. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant took the deceased Naresh Chandrakar to a vacant plot where he along with other juvenile offendors killed him by assaulting him with a knife and stick and further strangulated his neck with stick. The type of injuries found on the body of the deceased prima facie shows that the murder was committed in gruesome manner. 9. Releasing juvenile boys who have committed a heinous crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice, especially if their release is found to be against the best 4 interests of society and the victim's family. The Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the need for 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 their release would lead to public outcry and a feeling that justice has not been served. 10. Having regard to the gravity of offence and the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revisions. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 11. 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/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao