1 2025:CGHC:33731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 696 of 2025 1 - “XYZ” ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Kotwali, Korba (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17/07/ 2025 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Korba, District - Korba, C.G. in Special Case (Children Court) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.17 16:54:15 +0530 2 No.1/2025, upholding the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 638/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.10.2023, the police station Urga received information from Dial 112 that a dead body of unknown person was stuck in the canal of kudarmal village, on which the police went to the spot and took a photo of the body and made it viral in the WhatsApp group for identification and sent the body to the district hospital Korba and reached the hospital with the staff, where the brother of the deceased, Amit Sarathi reached after getting information from Manikpur outpost and identified the body as his brother Manish Sarathi. On the spot, the statement of the heirs was recorded and the Panchnama of the body was conducted in presence of witnesses, in which the deceased’s neck was injured three- four times with a sharp weapon, which was shown to the witnesses and opinion was taken, who suspected that the body was thrown into the canal after murder. In the Postmortem report, the nature of death of the deceased was 3 opined as homicidal. During investigation, the deceased’s motorcycle was found by the Kotwali police near Sunaliya Bridge and information was received about a fight that had taken place there. During investigation, the co-accused Danendra Kumar and the applicant, were produced before the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in observation home since 26.10.2023. There is no likelihood that 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 is aged about 16 years and there is a seizure of knife from the possession of the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant along with another major co-accused person with a common intention assaulted the deceased by means of knife, due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries on his neck and died. If the applicant is released on bail, there is a possibility that he will again 4 come into the company of criminals. Therefore, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. Section 12 of 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. 6. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that 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. 7. By the Additional Sessions Court (FTC), Korba, the appeal of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that giving the benefit of bail to the applicant defeats justice, and there is a possibility that recurrence of similar or other crimes cannot be ruled out. 8. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the 5 report of the probation officer that the applicant has lack of guidance and has come in contact with anti-social persons, looking to the overall nature of the crime, 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. 9. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 696/2025 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu