1 2025:CGHC:5927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1223 of 2024 1 - Conflicted With Law Juvenile (A) Natural Guardian Mother Aged About 17 Years, R/o (The Name And Address Of Applicant Is Seprately Filed In Close Envelop ...Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Outpost Manikpur, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Suresh Tandon, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pushplata Khalko,PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ) Order on Board 31/01/2025 The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') read with Sections 438 CRPC and Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.73/2024 by the Special Juvenile Court (FTC) Korba, 2 district Korba (C.G.), whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant arising out of order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Crime No.408/2024 by the Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Korba dismissing the bail application of the present applicant. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused, who is juvenile. The prosecution story, in brief, is that report was lodged by the complainant namely Ravi Kumar Yadav, against unknown persons alleging that in the invervening night of 10-11.07.2024, after commencement of the marriage function of her sister, at about 3.20 a.m., some unknown persons entered the room of the applicant’s sister and after threatening her, looted gold and silver ornaments and cash. On the basis of the said report, police registered Crime No. 408/2024 for the offence under Sections 309(6) and 3(5) of theBNS against the applicant and arrested on 12.07.2024. The juvenile filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 21.08.2024. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred before the learned Special Court, Korba which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.10.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 73/2024. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Orders passed by both the Courts below are improper 3 and contrary to the law. He further submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in custody 5.11.2024 and therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the orders passed by both the Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is true that in the case of a child who is in conflict with law, approach of the court in the matter of grant of bail with or without surety should be liberal and pragmatic but then the Court is also required to see that such release of juvenile may not expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. This apart, the Court is also required to record its satisfaction that release of a child in conflict with law is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The law mandates that normally in such matters it would not be appropriate to keep the juvenile in confinement but then it is also desirable that the court is required to see prima facie criminal delinquency of a child in conflict with law. 7. On perusal of the record including the social status report, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, and the report of the probationary officer is also indicative that there are great chances that he will again come under the influence of other accused persons. 4 8. In view of above and further considering the fact that the revisionist is a minor aged about 17 years, accompanied with the co-accused persons, entered the house of complainant’s sister and looted gold ornaments, in the considered opinion of this Court, releasing the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice and therefore I feel declined to interfere with the impugned orders. 9. Consequently, the revision fails and is herby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.14 17:26:14 +0530