1 2025:CGHC:33387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 759 of 2025 ABC Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16/07/ 2025 1. The victim along with her mother appeared virtually through concerned DLSA before this Court today and SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.16 18:38:54 +0530 2 recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. 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 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Appeal No.65/2025, upholding the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 396/2025 registered at Police Station Janjgir (C.G.) for the offence punishable U/s 62(2) (M) of BNS and U/s 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, mother of the victim/complainant appeared at the police station Janjgir on 09.05.2025 and lodged a report that her minor daughter/victim had stomach pain and was taken to the district hospital on 07.05.2025. Where the doctor advised to get sonography done. After getting sonography report, she came to know that the victim is 07 months pregnant and was told to deliver. When the complainant questioned the victim in this regard, she told that the child in conflict with the law had physical relations with her since the time of Diwali in the year 2024, due to which she became 3 pregnant. After which the victim gave birth to a girl child. Based on victim’s mother complaint, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely implicated in the crime in question. The DNA report is negative and there was an unnatural delay in lodging the FIR. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is aged about 17 years and he is in the observation home since 09.05.2025. He further submits that 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. The learned Court below have in mechanical manner rejected the bail of the applicant. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail and submits that at the time of incident the victim was minor. However, the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he has no criminal antecedent. 6. 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 4 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. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer states the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The Courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 8. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to 5 the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the trial Court. 9. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham