1 2025:CGHC:34881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 830 of 2025 1 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nil. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur , Distt- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22/07/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.242/2025 upholding the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 372/2024 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.22 18:16:41 +0530 2 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) NDPS Act, 1985 was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 23.10.2024, based on information provided by an informant to the Ganj Raipur Police Station, alleging that the applicant, along with co-accused, had traveled by bus and was proceeding towards Raipur Railway Station with the intention of selling narcotic substances (Ganja). Acting on this information, the police apprehended the applicant, conducted a search, and seized five packets containing a total of 10 kilograms of Ganja from his possession, leading to the registration of the FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has no criminal antecedent. 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. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant, aged about 17 years and 6 months, was found in possession of 10 kilograms of Ganja. It is further submitted that the applicant, along with major co-accused, was involved in selling narcotic substances. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be 3 released on bail. 5. 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. 6. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal and warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur and affirmed the said order. 8. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the lack of proper protection and care in a family environment has significantly contributed to the juvenile's undesirable associations. The juvenile's father, the guardian, is a laborer, and the mother is expired, with the juvenile having a stepmother. Granting bail to the juvenile would result in lack of proper care and protection. Furthermore, 4 the father's past involvement in a criminal case, despite his acquittal, raises concerns. In light of the social investigation report and the welfare of the juvenile, I conclude that granting bail to the applicant would likely expose him to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. 9. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.