1 2025:CGHC:9259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1468 of 2024 1 - Abc Conflicted With Law Nil ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Torwa, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 04/12/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Additional in-charge of Additional Session Judge (FTC) & Children Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.198/2024, whereby the order dated 21/11/2024 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 363/2024 rejecting the application for grant of bail for the offence punishable under section 65(2) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, has been affirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant who is 2 mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report on 27/09/2024 at about 9.15 a.m. before the Police Station Torwa alleging that on 25/09/2024 the present applicant forcefully committed sexual intercourse on her minor son and daughter aged about 4 and 9 years respectively. On 27/09/2024 prosecutrix have told her mother about the incident and thereafter she has lodged the report and on the basis of said report Police has registered the crime under Section 65 (2) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. Thereafter, an application under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was preferred before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur which has been dismissed on 21/11/2024. Subsequently, the present applicant preferred an appeal against the order dated 21/11/2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, in Criminal Case No. 363/2024 before the learned appellate Court, and the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the offence as alleged against the applicant is not made out and the trial is going on. He would next contend that in medical report there is no injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix. He would also contended that enmity between the complainant family and applicant’s family, prior to the date of incident. He lastly contend that the age of the applicant is very tender as he is only 14 years old, therefore, the order passed by the appellate Court may be set aside and the applicant may be released on bail. 3 5. Today, victims along with their mother appearing before this Court and has raised serious objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant. Her statement is taken on record. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order of the appellate Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the social investigation report. 8. Looking to the nature of offence committed by the applicant and considering the social investigation report, which shows that the child's conduct is good and after the death of the father, he has been living with his mother in the house of maternal grandparents, but the child violating the law and committing a criminal act like rape of 9 year old innocent victim and 3 year old innocent boy and the victim and the applicant are residents of the same locality, due to which the possibility of the child violating the law being in danger physically and mentally, in such a situation it seems justified to keep him under institutional observation for reform. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this revision and accordingly, the revision is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.02.25 12:16:13 +0530