1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 741 of 2025 ABC Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitty Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 18/07 / 2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. 2. On due consideration and finding the reasons given in the said application to be satisfactory, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of 28 days in filing the revision stands condoned. 3. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has been Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.21 16:13:50 +0530 2 preferred against the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/ Juvenile Court, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025 upholding the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.578/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitty, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5) BNS was rejected. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.08.2024, there was a quarrel between applicant and deceased Sourabh Patre over drinking alcohol. Then, the applicant used abusive language with Sourabh Patre and assaulted him by knife causing grievous injuries to him. Sourabh Patre was admitted at CIMS, Bilaspur, where he died during treatment. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant. 5. 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 3 may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there are two eye witnesses who have stated that on the date of incident, the applicant assaulted the deceased with knife. She submits that the knife was also seized from the applicant. She further submits that continuous 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (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. 9. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that since the reason 4 for the crime has been stated as the influence of the peer group in the report given by the Probation Officer, there is a possibility of the applicant coming in contact with other criminals if released on bail. 10. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicant holding that he needs continuous counseling and proper care. The possibility of physical and psychological danger to the child cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. By keeping him in an observation home, he will benefit from child welfare schemes and regular counseling and moral values will develop in him. The Probation Officer also has the same suggestion. 11. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the Probation Officer, the overall nature of the crime and the fact that there is a major co-accused in this case which gives rise to the suspicion that the company of the juvenile has not been good, it is found that if the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him in moral and psychological danger and the object of justice would be defeated. 12. 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 5 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. 13. For the foregoing discussion, 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. 14. However, 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 Khatai