1 2025:CGHC:32020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1414 of 2024 1 – ABC (Juvenile Conflict With The Law) Nil. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Fasterpur Distt. Mungeli (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L.s Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10/07/ 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 30.11.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli, District-Mungeli (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2024, upholding the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.72/2024 registered at Police Station Fasterpur, Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.15 10:24:13 +0530 2 Sections 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2)(A) of BNS was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 25.08.2024, the complainant, Narendra Patle, lodged a report stating that, his brother Bhagbali Patle, Vakil Patle, Kaushal Patle, and sister-in- law Santoshi were standing near his brother Makhan Patle's house. When the complainant heard a commotion from about 150 meters away, he saw the juvenile/accused and co-accused engaging in a fight with the above said family members over a land dispute. The accused persons allegedly abused and assaulted the family members with clubs, causing grievous injuries. Furthermore, co-accused Kejuram drove a tractor over Bhagbali Patle, resulting in his instantaneous death. Vakil Patle, Kaushal Patle, and Santoshi Patle were seriously injured and admitted to the hospital, where Vakil Patle was declared dead. Based on the report, the police registered the offense against the applicants and co-accused, arrested them on 25.08.2024, and sent them to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. In the recent probationary officer report, it is mentioned that the behavior of the applicant is good and it appears better to provide him protection under the supervision of his family. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 3 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 the applicant is aged about 13 years and 11 months and the applicant along with other co-accused persons with a common intention assaulted the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died. Looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. 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. 6. 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 knowsn criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal and warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli and affirmed the said order. 8. Upon careful consideration of the case's facts and 4 circumstances, it appears that the applicant allegedly played a significant role in the incident, involving 08 other major co- accused who are his close relatives. Granting bail to the applicant at this stage would result in lack of proper care and protection and would likely expose him to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. 9. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.