1 2025:CGHC:47612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1011 of 2025 1 - XYZ Accused (In Observation Home) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant/Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16-09-2025 1. Pursuant to order dated 01.09.2025, the notice issued to the victim/complainant has been served upon the father of the victim, but neither they appeared through virtual mode nor physically they appeared before this Court to record their submission. Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the present criminal revision. 2. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Children Court/ Second Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. H 56/2025, filed by the applicant under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act, 2015’), has been dismissed. The said Criminal Appeal was filed against the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.17 20:02:57 +0530 2 whereby the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in connection with Crime No.217/2015 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund for offence under Section 64(2)(m), 65(1), 69 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is admittedly a juvenile and he is in observation home from 04.06.2025. He would further submit that as per Section 12 of the Act, 2015 for the purpose of releasing a Juvenile on bail, the gravity of offence is not to be seen. It is also submitted that the appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board have not discussed anything so far as merits of the case are concerned, therefore, it is a fit case, where the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail, on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the applicant, and also the social status report submitted by the Probation Officer who has given a report that the applicant is in habit of watching obscene video in mobile phone and he may again indulge in the said addiction with the criminal activity, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition as well as the case diary. 6. In case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2011 (1) CGLRW-140, in para -6 of the said judgment, this court has observed as under: “6.The scope and object of provision regarding grant of bail to a Juvenile as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act came up for consideration before the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat @ Bhrat & Another (supra), wherein it was held that the use of word "Shall" by the legislative provisions in the Section 12 of the Act is of great significance and which raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the 3 Juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the Juvenile shall not be so released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section also uses the word "Shall" imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the Board. It has also been held that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to the Juvenile and would be liable to be rejected only when it appears to the Board that either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing.” 7. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder: “Section 12 Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. —(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.” 8. A plain reading of the said section by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a matter of routine, in case an accused happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained, and is brought before the Board, such person notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other special law, which is in force, should be released on bail. But at the same time the latter part of Sub-Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual background of a case, if it appears to the Court that releasing of the said 4 juvenile can bring him into association of the company with which he landed himself in the remand home or he may get exposed to moral and psychological danger as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in the event, the circumstances surrounding the juvenile show that upon his release from the observation home, can lead to exposing the juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may refuse to release the juvenile on bail. 9. In the instant case also, taking into consideration the report of Probation Officer, that the applicant may indulge in bad company and also engage in the said habit of watching obscene video on mobile phone and taking note of the offence committed by the juvenile, cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, if the applicant is released on bail, there is every chance of his coming into association with known bad company which would further expose him to moral as well as psychological danger, and if that happens on his release, then the ends of justice would get defeated. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the Juvenile Justice Board does not warrant any interference by this Court at this juncture, and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 but would fall within the exception carved out in the said Section. 11. Accordingly, no good case is made out for allowing the instant criminal revision calling for interference with the orders under challenge. 12. Criminal Revision being devoid of merit, it is dismissed. However, the learned Juvenile Justice Board is expected to decide the case as early as possible. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil