1 2025:CGHC:35577 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 810 of 2025 ABC (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description of Applicant and the name of legal guardian is in losed envelope)..........(At Remand Home) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Pusore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal) (Order on Board) 23.07.2025 1. This revision has been filed by the juvenile in conflict with law under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 10-12-2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.126/2024 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO Act), Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Crime No. 194/2024 registered at P.S. Pusore, District Raigarh for the offences punishable u/s 70(1), 140(3), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(B)(1) and 3(2)(V) of the Schedueled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby the bail application of the present applicant was rejected. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written report was lodged by the victim girl that on 19.08.2024 she was going from her village Sodekela to see an exhibition (Mela) at Raigarh and on the way at about 6.00 p.m., A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.28 18:25:01 +0530 2 near village Kesaipali, the applicant juvenile along-with other 2 juveniles & 6 major co-accused all forcibly took away her to Darri Pond situated on the roadside and threatened to kill her and committed physical sexual intercourse with her one by one. On the basis of the above complaint of the victim, the case was taken up for investigation. On enquiry being made, the juvenile admitted to have committed the offence and he was sent to observation home. He filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which also came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the juvenile is in custody since 21.08.2024 and the social status report is not against the juvenile. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the position of law and have declined bail to the applicant. 4. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the courts below are against the social information report and is based on surmises and conjectures. It has been further submitted that there is no evidence to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No such findings were recorded as to how he will come in contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 5. He submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant had no criminal back-ground and in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, therefore,he may be extended benefit of bail. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that the test identification parade was conducted wherein the juvenile applicant and other accused were identified by the victim. He further submits that the 3 order passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The social investigation report goes to show that the child is currently a school dropout and he has no criminal antecedents. 9. On perusal of the records it is evident that the child has not been reported to have any previous criminal record. However, in the social investigation report, it is also mentioned that the child is of normal character and it would be in the interest of the child to provide him regular counseling along with proper protection and the environment. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the record, the child in conflict with law along with eight other accused, out of which, six are major accused has allegedly committed gang rape on the complainant. Having regard to the nature of the crime, at this stage if bail is granted, it leads demoralization of the society and defeats the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in this revision Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao