1 2025:CGHC:30278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 656 of 2025 Xyz Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 03/07/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025 upholding the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 43 of 2025 registered at Police Station Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the 2 offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(e), 70(2), 71, 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(in short “POCSO Act, 2012”) was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the mother of the victim lodged a written report in the Police Station Darima on 23.03.2025 alleging that her minor daughter, stays in the house of Doctor Soni, who is her relative at village in Badedamali. There she studies and does household work. On the next day of Holi, the wife of Doctor Soni from village Badedamali called her and told that her daughter/victim has been secretly leaving the house every day for the last 4-5 nights without informing anyone and returns home after 2-3 hours at night. She suspects that some boys come to pick her up at night with whom the victim goes somewhere secretly at night without informing anyone. Then the mother of the victim went to village Badedamali at the house of Dr. Soni to pick up her daughter/victim. Where her daughter/victim told her about the incident that she likes the present applicant and before 4 to 5 days of Holi, he(present applicant) came to pick her up at night and had physical relations with her and after some time in the night, two friends of the present applicant namely- Surendra Singh (Monu) and Yashwant Singh (Chhotu) also came inside the room and had physical relations with her one by one and threatened to defame her in the entire village and kill her if she will tell anyone about the incident. Due to this fear, she used to leave the house secretly at night on the call of the present applicant and his friends for 4-5 days continuously and all three of them used to have physical relations with her one by one. On the said complaint lodged by the mother/applicant of the victim, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the 3 present applicant alonwith other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and no antecedents have been reported against the 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. He further submits that the applicant is in Observation Home since 24.03.2025 and staying there for more period will adversely affect his childish mentality. 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 in the present case the applicant alongwith his two friends who are major committed the offence of rape continuously for about 4 to 5 days and also threatened the minor victim to defame her in the entire village and kill her, if she will tell anyone about the incident He is aged about 17 years. There were total 3 accused persons involved in the crime in question i.e. one is the present applicant whereas other two co-accused persons are major and they are also in jail. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. Victim herself has appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing from D.L.S.A., Sarguja. She has raised no objection in allowing the bail application filed by the applicant. 6. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a child 4 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 bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that the present applicant took the victim to an deserted house at night and alongwith two major friends made physical relation with her one by one for about 4 to 5 days and also threatened the minor victim to defame her in the entire village and kill her if she will tell anyone about the incident therefore, in case the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 8. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal on the ground that as per the report submitted by Probation Officer, prima facie it is established that applicant/ juvenile committed gang rape with the victim/prosecutrix, below 16 years of age, alongwith two other co- accused persons. In such a situation, as the crime committed against the applicant / juvenile is of serious nature, therefore, learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the order passed by the trial Court while rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant. 9. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the 5 facts & circumstances of the case, I note that the prosecution relies on report submitted by Probation Officer, according to which prima facie it is established that applicant/ juvenile committed gang rape with the victim/prosecutrix, below 16 years of age, alongwith two other co- accused persons. Given the involvement of other co-accused persons, who are major and is currently in jail, granting bail to the juvenile would result in lack of proper care and protection, further the trial has yet to commence, I conclude that granting bail to the applicant would likely expose him to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the reasoned findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court. 10. Consequently, this criminal revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s). 11. Considering the age of the applicant and the nature of the crime, the Juvenile Justice Board should consider under Section 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.08 12:25:28 +0530