1 2025:CGHC:5926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1310 of 2024 1 - Xyz (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Neeraj Sharma,GA (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') against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.99/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant arising out of order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Crime No.280/2024 by the 2 Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari 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 on 13.07.2024 ie. the date of incident, at about 9.00 pm. The applicant who was a drug addict, stabbed with knife on the injured in the fish market with intention to commit his murder. On the basis of the said report, police registered the offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS against the applicant and arrested on 14.07.2024. 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 23.10.2024. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Dhamtari which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 99/2024. 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 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 14.07.2024 and therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail. 3 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 looking to the depravity of his mind. Therefore, it is prayed that considering the gravity of offence and Social Investigation Report filed by the Probationary Officer the criminal revision filed on behalf of the juvenile be dismissed. It is also submitted that there are two criminal antecedents (under Sections 294,323,506/34 IPC and Sections 327,506 IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act) against the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is undisputed that at the time of commission of offence, juvenile in conflict with law was below 18 years. Learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned Sessions Court have taken into consideration the ghastly and abominable crime committed by the juvenile. They have also taken note of the report of the Probationary Officer. 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. 4 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 the juvenile is a drug addict and smoking. He has deprave and malign mentality and therefore Section 12 of the Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to give advantage to only juvenile in conflict with law ignoring the concern of the society. 8. In view of above consideration as also the fact that the revisionist, who is a drug addict and on the date of incident, he was under the influence of drugs, had stabbed the injured with knife, causing injuries on his chest and elbow, 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: 2025.02.10 14:10:35 +0530