1 2025:CGHC:32420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 821 of 2024 1 - ABC Nil 2 - DEF Nil .. Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Deepak Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11/07/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.15 13:50:08 +0530 2 Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Additional Charge Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) and Children Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.92/2024 upholding the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.16/2024 registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 R/w Section 34 of IPC was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.11.2020, the complainant, Ishwar Kewart, lodged a missing person report at Police Outpost Malhar stating that on 12.11.2020, at around 9:00 PM, his son, Vikas Kewart, aged 19 years, had left the house and did not return. In October 2023, a boy named Bundru from Malhar informed that Vikas Kewart had been murdered by Ajay Bhanu along with other juveniles in conflict with law, and that his body had been buried near Hathni Pond in a field. Based on the said information provided by the complainant, the police at Outpost Malhar interrogated the suspects, who confessed to the commission of the offence. Thereafter, on 3 08.01.2024, in the presence of Tehsildar Masturi, excavation was carried out in the field of Ramji Patel using a JCB machine as per the information given by Ajay Bhanu and the juveniles in conflict with law, during which a human skeleton was recovered. Upon seeing the clothes, bracelet, and belt found with the skeleton, the complainant identified the remains as those of his son, whereupon a Panchnama was prepared and the skeleton was sent for medical post-mortem examination. Consequently, an offence was registered against Ajay Bhanu and three juveniles in conflict with law. Upon finding sufficient evidence against them, the juveniles were apprehended and sent to the Juvenile Observation Home. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedent. There is no likelihood of their release would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them 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 applicants 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 applicant no.1 4 had 1 criminal antecedent of same nature. Bundru has clearly stated against the applicants. There was 1 major co- accused involved in the crime in question and he is also in jail. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicants, at this stage, they 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 applicants were rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicants are released on bail it is likely to bring them into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari and affirmed the 5 said order. 8. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that applicant no. 1 has a criminal antecedent of the same nature and there is no other report against them in the social status report. A major co- accused has also been involved with the applicants in this incident. Further, the trial is going on, I conclude that granting bail to the applicants would likely expose them to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. 9. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham