1 2025:CGHC:45297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 926 of 2025 Abc Description Of Application And The Name Of Legal Guardians Is In Closed Envelope ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Charcha, District Koriya C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 04.09.2025 1. This revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Children Court/Special Judge (Under POCSO Act), Baikunthpur District-Koriya (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2025 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 34/2025 registered at Police ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.09 11:44:59 +0530 2 Station – Charcha, District- Koriya (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 70(2) of BNS and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, mother of the victim has lodged a report alleging that in the mid-night of 24.01.2025 she saw that the victim was not in bed. However on 26.01.2025 the victim was recovered and she stated that one Madhav Sahu took her to a room and established physical relationship with her and made a video. Thereafter Sanjay Rajwade took her to Odgi Naka Baikunthpur in a room where two persons were already present, who too established physical relationship with her. Based upon which aforementioned crime was registered in the concerned Police Station and applicant was brought to observation home on 27.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He further submits that applicant is minor aged about 17 years and allegation is of committing sexual intercourse with the victim (minor) who was also aged about 17 years. He was taken for interrogation on 24.01.2025 and on 27.01.2025 he was sent to observation home. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that applicant along with two other persons committed gang rape with the minor victim. Medical report MLC of victim is also positive, hence, he is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 6. The provision of bail for juvenile is given under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which reads as under:- “12. Bail of juvenile.-(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained, or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the case of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” 7. A bare reading of above quoted provision would show that a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, except in three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 itself. These three situations are:(i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (ii) the release will expose the juvenile to moral, physical or 4 psychological danger and; (iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. Perusal of impugned order reveals that bail has been refused to applicant based on the ground that because of the company with elder children in age to him, applicant has committed the offence in question, there is lack of parental control over the juvenile and therefore, it would be in the welfare/best interest of the juvenile to keep him in the Observation Home so that the applicant will not again come into the contact of anti-social and criminal elements. 9. As per the social investigation report of the Probation Officer, the reason for involvement of applicant in crime in question is the company of children elder to him in age and lack of control of parents. 10. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that there is every chance of this applicant to come in contact with known criminals and his release shall expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Hence, it is in the interest of the juvenile to keep him in the Observation Home, rather to release him on bail exposing him to the risk of coming in the contact of criminals again. 11. Consequently, I do not find any error in the order passed by appellate Court as also the Board warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza