1 2025:CGHC:34668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 708 of 2025 XYZ (Name And Decryption Of The Applicant Is In The Closed Envelop) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21/07 / 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balodabazar(CG) in Criminal Appeal No.27/2025 arising out of the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Balodabazar, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.23 09:22:55 +0530 2 whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.23/2024 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) BNS was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant assaulted deceased Rajesh Nirmalkar by knife causing grievous injuries to him, as a result of which he died during treatment. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. 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. Both the learned Courts have 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 assaulted the deceased with knife due to which he died during treatment. He submits that there is an eye witness to the incident and the social status report of the applicant is also negative. He further submits that continuous 3 counselling of the applicant is necessary and looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “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 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. 7. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicant holding that the alleged charge against the child in conflict with the law is very serious in nature and the possibility of influencing the prosecution witnesses by him if released on bail cannot be ruled out. 8. The social status report of the applicant is also negative which shows that the family environment is not positive due to the father’s addiction and beating, the child is often 4 outside due to the home environment, he takes drugs and has an angry temperament and continuous counseling of the applicant is necessary for development of moral values in him. 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 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. For the foregoing discussion and considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the Probation Officer and the overall nature of the crime, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai