1 2025:CGHC:34669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 812 of 2025 ABC Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21/07 / 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.245/2025 upholding the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.23 09:23:16 +0530 2 No.274/2024 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 397, 34 of IPC was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.06.2024, the applicant along with co-accused took away the mobile phone, ATM card, bank passbook, pan card etc. from the pocket of deceased Mangal Muria and assaulted him with hands, fists, kicks and banged his head on the ground as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant and co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He submits that there was dispute between the deceased and the main accused. 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 Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Hence, 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 there is one eye witness to the incident. He submits that there is no 3 past record of the applicant and the social status report is not against to applicant. However, continuous counseling 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 if the child is given the benefit of bail at present, there is every possibility of his morale increasing and the possibility of his repeating such criminal act again cannot be ruled out and there is also a possibility of him coming in contact with known and unknown criminals again. 4 8. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicant holding that 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. 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 the overall nature of the crime and the fact that there is a 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 would be defeated. 10. Releasing juvenile boys who have committed a heinous crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice, especially if their release is found to be against the best interests of society and the victim's family. 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 5 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. 12. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai