1 2025:CGHC:36653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 574 of 2025 1 - A Juvenile Conflict With Law Xyz ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Police Station - City Kotwali, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ) Order on Board 28/07/2025 The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') read with Sections 438 CRPC and Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.75/2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Durg (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.30 10:37:49 +0530 2 order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.41/2025 by the Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Durg dismissing the bail application of the present applicant. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused, who is juvenile. The prosecution story, in brief, is that report was lodged by the complainant on 2.11.2024 alleging that she received a phone call of one Shubham who informed that her husband was stabbed with knife and shifted to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Supela. When she reached the hospital she found her husband lying dead and that the juvenile in conflict with law was asking her husband to do some illegal work to which he denied and therefore killed him. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered FIR No. 1179/2024 under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 238, 249 of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 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 31.01.2025. 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 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits 3 that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant I in the observation home since 3.11.2024 and therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that report has been received from the Station House In charge, Supela, District Durg that the juvenile in conflict with law has previous criminal antecedent against him for the offence under Sections 294,506,323,307/34,147,148, and 149 of IPC. She submits that the orders passed by both the 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. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is true that in the case of a child who is in conflict with law, approach of the court in the matter of grant of bail with or without surety should be liberal and pragmatic but then the Court is also required to see that such release of juvenile may not expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. This apart, the Court is also required to record its satisfaction that release of a child in conflict with law is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The law mandates that normally in such matters it would not be appropriate to keep the juvenile in confinement but then it is also desirable that the court is required to see prima facie criminal delinqueny of a child in conflict with law. 4 7. On perusal of the record including the social status report wherein it has been mentioned that the juvenile in conflict with law has a history of criminal antecedents including his involvement in prior offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307/34,147,148, and 149 of IPC which indicate a pattern of delinquent behaviour reflecting adversely on his conduct and propensity to indulge in unlawful activities. Thus, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, and the report of the probationary officer is also indicative that there is a strong likelihood that the juvenile may again come under the influence of other accused persons which may lead to his further involvement in criminal activities thereby defeating the very purpose of his rehabilitation and reform. 8. In view of above consideration,in the considered opinion of this Court,releasing the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice and therefore I feel declined to interfere with the impugned orders. 9. Consequently, the revision fails and is herby dismissed. However, the Juvenile Justice Board is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge