1 2025:CGHC:46677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1082 of 2025 1. A Juvenile In Conflict With Law (Details Of The Applicant Is Provided In The Sealed Envelope Attached Herein) ... Applicant (In Jail) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Saragaon, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/9/2025 1. This revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015') is filed against the order dated 4.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) District Janjgir Champa (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.102/2025 filed against the order dated 12.6.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Janjgir Champa (for short 'the Board') by which application for grant of bail to applicant in SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 connection with Crime No.31/2025 registered at Police Station Saragaon, District Janjgir Champa (CG) for the offences under Section 103 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was rejected. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.3.2025 police received information that some unknown person has committed murder of Aangan Kumar Kewant and his body is lying in village Afrid Darripara. During investigation, it was found that it is present applicant and other two juvenile co- accused who had committed murder of deceased and therefore, they were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He submits that there is no eyewitness to alleged incident and FIR is registered against unknown persons. Present applicant has been made accused in crime in question on the basis of memorandum statement of other juvenile accused. Nothing incriminating has been seized from possession of applicant. He submits that learned Sessions Judge as well as Board has not appreciated the fact that applicant is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. He submits that there is no evidence to show that if the applicant is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him 3 into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice. Applicant is in observation home since 25.3.2025 and further custody of applicant in the observation home will ruin his future. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicants, would submit that applicant has actively participated in commission of offence i.e. murder of a boy, which shows his deprivation of mind. At instance of applicant, one knife was seized from open place. He further submits that release of applicants is likely to expose them to moral or psychological danger and as such, their bail application has rightly been rejected by the Board and the Court below. Hence, present criminal revision filed on behalf of applicant (juvenile) be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the documents filed along with criminal revision. 6. The provision of bail for juvenile is given under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which reads as under: 12. Bail of juvenile.-(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other 4 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 institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order. “ 7. A bare reading of above quoted provision would show that a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, except in three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015 itself. These three situations are: (i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (ii) the release will expose the juvenile to 5 moral, physical or psychological danger and; (iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. Social investigation report of applicant/juvenile, which was submitted before the Board, is placed for perusal of this Court by learned counsel for the State. In the social investigation report of applicant it is recorded that relations of applicant with his family members, with his friends and neighbourers is friendly/cordial. He is presently studying in Class 11th. Applicant is not addicted to any kind of intoxicants. Juvenile has an interest in reading books, watching movies and playing outdoor games. It is also mentioned in the report that most of his friends are educated, of the same as the applicant, all are of the same sex, mental and physical condition of juvenile is good. No criminal antecedent of applicant is shown. His company is not shown with any criminals. Nothing adverse has been reported in respect of habit of applicant or that release of applicant would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger or he would come in association of known criminals. 9. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the reason for denying concession of bail to applicant is the apprehension that it would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. However, the Court below has not mentioned in the impugned order as to what was the basis for recording a 6 finding that moral, physical and psychological danger is possible to the applicant. There is no discussion of this aspect in the impugned order. In absence of any justification and especially, a failure of the Courts below to take into consideration the exceptions given under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 where bail can be denied to a juvenile, this is a fit case to interfere in the impugned orders and grant bail to the juvenile. 10. Therefore, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court and the Board are hereby quashed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by his mother, with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, the custody of applicant shall be given to her mother. It shall be duty of the mother of applicant to produce him before the Justice Board as and when directed. She shall take proper care of applicant and will not allow him to fall into association of any person of criminal background. She shall ensure that the applicant will not repeat the offence of like nature in future. 11. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-