1 2025:CGHC:10620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1296 of 2024 1 - A Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nil ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Manendragarh, District- M.C.B., Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/03/2025 The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.76/2024 by the learned Juvenile Court/Additional/Upper Sessions Judge, FTSC Manendragarh, District MCB (C.G.), whereby the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 95/2023 by the 2 Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board,Baikunthpur 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 the complainant namely Gaya Prasad, father of the deceased Sahdev Singh, lodged a report at police station Kelhari, District MCB to the effect that on 16.09.2023 when they were sleeping in the night, grandmother of the deceased Foolmatiya informed that Sahdev Singh had died. The complainant reached there along with his wife and came to know that some unknown person had assaulted the deceased. It is further alleged that on the date of incident ie. 16.09.20233, when Balram Singh and his brother Tirath Singh were returning, they saw that accused Pappu Singh @ Rampratap Singh was assaulting the deceased with iron rod whereas the present applicant was assaulted with hands and fists and on seeing them, they fled away from the spot. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 86/2023 was registered at police station Kelhari, District MCB under Section 302/34 IPC. 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 18.07.2024 by giving a finding that the offence was grievous in nature and was sent to the observation home. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile-conflict-with-law argued that the provisions of Section 12 of Act of 2015 mandates that " the juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under 3 the supervision of the probation officer or under the care of any fit person. Provided that such person shall not be released on bail if there appears reasonable ground 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". In the case, in hand, learned Juvenile Board has given a finding that looking to the seriousness of the offence, appeal is dismissed and the Court below has not considered the provision of Section 12 of Act of 2015 in its proper perspective and thereby committed irregularity while rejecting the appeal. He further submits that in order to find out the physical and mental status of juvenile in conflict with law there is a provision under Section 14 and 15 of Act of 2015. He submits that the provision of Section 15 was considered and the finding under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 has already been given by Juvenile Justice Board to try the offence before the Juvenile Justice Board and not before the Children Court, therefore, the revision should be allowed and the applicant should be released on bail. He submits that the main accused has been granted bail and the juvenile in the present case has only gave hand and fist blows on the deceased and the Social Status report submitted by the Probationary Officer is also in favour of the child in conflict with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a categorical finding recorded by learned Court below with regard to the seriousness of the offence and also given a finding that in the interest of justice, the applicant juvenile- conflict-with-law shall not be released on bail. It is further submitted that these findings are based on proper assessment of the material placed 4 before it and therefore the finding recorded does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered their rival submissions. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the main accused is Pappu Singh @ Rampratap Singh who had assaulted the deceased with rod and the present applicant had only gave hand and fist blow however, there was no specific allegation against the applicant of committing the alleged offence/crime, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 7. From the perusal of the record, I do not find any reasonable ground having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Police Authorities in respect of the so called threat of the juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or come in the company of known criminal. 8. In view of above consideration, the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 could not be sustained and is therefore, set aside. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, by the parents or guardians of the applicant, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board, as and when directed. 9. Revision is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.05 16:52:28 +0530