1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1446 of 2025 KT (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Thana- Kotwali, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Bahrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 27/01 / 2026 1. The present Revision 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 14.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge FTSC(POCSO)/ Juvenile Court, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal Case No.112/2025 upholding the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) whereby the BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.01.28 16:30:14 +0530 2 bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.489/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon for offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.09.2025, complainant Aryan Srivastava received a phone call from injured Tek Prasad Bhoi that he was going to Jodhpur Dhaba on his motorcycle at 4:00 am to have tea and snacks. Three unknown boys demanded money from him to fill petrol, and when he refused, they quarreled with him, took his Bluetooth earphone, and tried to snatch his mobile. They also stabbed him with a sharp knife in the back and left thigh with intention to kill him. The injured was taken to Medical College Hospital, Pendri, and later referred to Narayana Hospital, Raipur, for treatment. Based on the report lodged by the complainant, the said offence has been registered against the applicant and two co-accused persons. 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 3 Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. He prays that 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 it is the applicant who stabbed the injured. He 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. 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 (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 bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that the offence was committed while the juvenile was under the care of his 4 maternal grandmother and releasing on bail is likely to bring him into association with known criminals. 8. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicant on the ground that the social investigation report shows that the applicant’s father has expired, his mother lives separately and the applicant resides with his maternal grandmother. He is addicted to watching TV/mobile, spends excessive time with his friends and committed the said crime with the influence of friends. Therefore, 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 and is placed under the care of her maternal grandmother. By keeping him in an observation home, he will benefit from child welfare schemes and regular counseling and moral values will develop in him. 9. 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 are two 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 5 would be defeated. 10. 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. 11. 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai