1 2025:CGHC:39469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1183 of 2024 1 - XYZ Nil ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O., P.S. Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Soni Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07/08/ 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 09.10.2024 passed by the Learned First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.346/2024 upholding the order dated 25.09.2024 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 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.07 16:01:08 +0530 2 No.531/2024 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 5m & 6 of POCSO Act was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.09.2024, a written complaint was filed by the complainant Sanjay Verma at the Assembly Police Station. According to the complaint, Sanjay Verma, reported that his 8-year-old son, a student of Class 3 at Government Primary School, Saddhu, was sexually assaulted. The child had gone to school on 13.09.2024, at about 7:30 am and returned home at about 1:00 pm, crying. When questioned by his mother, the child revealed that while walking home from school, an unknown person offered him 'prasad' near the Ganesh pandal at Chandni Chowk, Saddhu. The person then forcibly took the child behind the pandal, removed his pants and underwear, and committed a sexual act on him. The child reported the incident to his mother in the evening, and the parents then took the child to the police station to file a report. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the FIR has ben registered against the unknown person and the present applicant has been implicated only on the suspicion. There is no eyewitness in the present case and case is based only upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no strong piece of evidence against the applicant to link him with the happening of the offences. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. There is no likelihood of his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to 3 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, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that out of 14 witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. Despite service of notice, neither the victim nor any representative on his behalf has appeared. 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. 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. 8. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal and 4 warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur and affirmed the said order. 9. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the probation officer though in the recent probationary officer report, it is mentioned that the lack of family supervision and the negative impact of modern environment are major factors contributing to juvenile delinquency. During the residence period , the child has been provided with regular counseling and a structured daily routine and looking to the overall nature of the crime, 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. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 1183/2024 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed. However, the concerned Juvenile Justice Board is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Sourabh P. Judge