1 2025:CGHC:29959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 960 of 2024 1 - XYZ (Juvenile Conflict With Law Observation Home/custody). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Gunderdehi, P.S. Gunderdehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 02/07/ 2025 1. The present Revision petition 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 14.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC) & Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balod, District-Balod C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2024, upholding the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) rejecting the bail SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.07 14:11:30 +0530 2 application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 110/2024 registered at Police Station Gunderdehi, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 376(3) of IPC and Section 4, 5(T), 6 of POCSO Act (as per charge sheet). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant (victim’s mother) lodged a written report to the concerned police station stating that she works as a daily wage lobourer and her daughter/victim aged about 15 years, studying in Class 10th, suddenly fell ill and she took her to relative’s house in Durg for treatment and there, the victim told them that the applicant forcefully took her near the village pond and on pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which her daughter/victim has become 07 months pregnant. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicant is about 16 years 05 months old, he is in the observation home since 05.05.2024. 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. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Juvenile in Conflict with Law V vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., passed in Special Leave 3 Petiton (Crl.) No. 9566 of 2024 on 14.08.2024. 4. 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 aged about 15 years, who became 07 months pregnant. However, the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he has no criminal antecedents. He also submits that the age of the applicant is 16 years 05 months. 5. On 11.11.2024, victim along with her mother appeared virtually from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection in granting bail to the applicant. 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 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 dated 27.11.2024 was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer and a bare perusal of it would show that 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 4 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 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 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 Sourabh P.