1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 966 of 2025 1 - XYZ (Juvenile in Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And The Name Of Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope). ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Arjuni, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20/08/ 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 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhamtari, district - Dhamtari, C.G. in Criminal Appeal Case No. 35/2025, upholding the order dated 10.07.2025 Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.20 18:12:43 +0530 2 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 72/2025 registered at Police Station Arjuni, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64 & 89 of B.N.S. and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, an FIR was lodged against the applicant on the basis of Dehati Nalshi lodged by the mother of the victim alleging therein that on 12.05.2025, her daughter informed her that the applicant is establishing physical relationship with her from the month of January, 2025 and she became pregnant and when this fact was informed to the applicant, the applicant took the victim at Balajee Hospital situated at Dhamtari, wherein on 30.04.2025 the pregnancy of the victim was terminated. 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 crime in question. He further submits that the victim was a consenting party and the DNA report is negative, as it would show that the applicant was not the biological father of the fetus. The applicant is 3 aged about 17 years and he is in the observation home since 20.05.2025. He further submits that 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. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail and submits that the applicant committed a heinous offence with a minor girl, due to which she became pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. The victim and her mother appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant 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 4 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 was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer. 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 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 trail Court as well as appellate Court have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 8. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional 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 5 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 H.L. Sahu