1 2025:CGHC:26013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 646 of 2025 Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nil ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Dharsiwa, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. This revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015') is filed against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Raipur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2025 filed against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp (for short 'the Board') by which application for grant of bail to applicants in connection with Crime No. 615/2023 decided on 07.04.2025 registered at Police Station Dharsiva, District Raipur for the offences under Sections 147,148, SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.06.23 10:30:27 +0530 2 149,325,307 of the Indian Penal Code, 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant Murli Manohar Markam lodged the complaint before Police Station Dharsiva alleging that accused Puran Solanki, Dinesh Solanki, Amit Solanki and Vijay Rathore have assaulted his son when his son Kripesh Markam had taken his dog outside from his house near Sarswati Shishu Mandir Taresar Road, at the same time, the applicant along with other co-accused have reached there armed with rod, lathi and danda and assaulted the son of complainant on account of old enmity. Upon receiving the information on mobile, he alongwith his brother reached to the spot where they saw that the applicants and co-accused with common intention surrounded his son threatened to kill him and started assaulting him with lathi, danda, knife and rod, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his eyes, leg and the rib. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged before Police Station Dharsiva under Crime No. 615 of 2025. The police after usual investigation has filed the challan before the competent Court. Since the applicants are juvenile, therefore, charge sheet submitted before Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur. 3. Learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the same vide order dated 17.02.2025. Being aggrieved with the order of the Board, the applicants have preferred an appeal under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015'), the same has been dismissed on 07.04.2025 in Cr.A No. 106 of 2025. Both 3 the orders has been assailed before this Court by filing the instant Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged. He would further submit that the applicants are in jail since 28.12.2023 and the trial has not begun and only one witness has been examined and his cross-examination is still not completed. He would further submit that no specific allegation has been levelled against them and status report submitted by the Presiding Officer has also recommended for keeping the child in home, so that he may return to the society and would pray for allowing the revision. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that there is direct allegation against the applicants as alleged by the complainant and his son and the manner in which they have assaulted the victims. He further submits that release of applicants is likely to expose him to moral or psychological danger and as such, their bail application has rightly been rejected by the Board and as well as by the Appellate Court and would pray for rejection of the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the documents filed along with criminal revision. 7. First submission made by counsel for the applicants is that the trial is not regularly conducting by the Board. This court has received social status report on 12.06.2025 wherein it is mentioned that Presiding Officer was transferred on 19.12.2024 to 09.03.2025 and on 25.03.2025 to 4 26.04.2025, now the Principal Magistrate, has been appointed and there is no impediment to conclude the trial expeditiously. Thus the submission made by counsel for the applicants on the ground of delay cannot be considered. 8. Further submission of the counsel for the applicants is that nothing has been brought against the applicants whereas one witness was examined before the Court whose cross examination is still not completed. From bare perusal of FIR it is clear, one person was assaulted by so many person with rod, lathi and danda, further considering the manner in which the applicants have assaulted the victim with rod, lathi, danda and knife and also looking to the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that releasing the applicant will not be in his interest and I do not find any error in the order passed by the Appellate Court as well as by the Board. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 9. However, it is directed that the Juvenile Justice Board should make an endeavor to conclude the trial as early as possible. It is also directed that unnecessary adjournment will not be granted to any of the parties by the Juvenile Justice Board. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh