1 2025:CGHC:29089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1442 of 2024 XYZ (Name and address of the Applicant is submitted in closed envelop) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, C.G ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 30/06/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.02 16:58:08 +0530 2 been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Additional Charge Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) and Children Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.102/2024 upholding the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.221/2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 & 302 of IPC was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14.02.2024, at around 11:30 PM in front of Gopi Suryavanshi’s house, due to some altercation, the applicant and his close relatives, started assaulting the complainant and one Pankaj using the handle side of a spade (rapa), wooden stick, wooden pole and the applicant used an axe (tangiya). As a result, Pankaj Upadhyay sustained a head injury. The complainant also sustained serious injuries on his head, both hands, and legs. Both the injured were taken to the Hospital. During the course of treatment, Pankaj Upadhyay succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has no criminal antecedent. There is no likelihood of his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 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 eye- witnesses have seen the applicant in committing the crime, a seizure of Tangiya has been made from the applicant. He is aged about 17 years. There were total 5 major co-accused persons involved in the crime in question who are the close relatives father and uncles-aunts (Chacha-Chachi) of the applicant and they are also in jail Hence, 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 4 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 known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal on the ground that there was a seizure of Tangiya from the present applicant, therefore, warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari and affirmed the said order. 8. Upon careful consideration of the case's facts and circumstances, I note that the prosecution relies on eyewitnesses and the recovery of an axe (tangiya) from the applicant, who is alleged to have played a significant role in the incident. Given the involvement of five other co- accused, who are the applicant's close relatives and are currently in jail, granting bail to the juvenile would result in lack of proper care and protection, further the trial has yet to commence, I conclude that granting bail to the applicant would likely expose him to moral and 5 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. 10. Considering the age of the applicant and the nature of the crime, the Juvenile Justice Board should consider under Section 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham