1 2025:CGHC:52360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1126 of 2025 1 - G S/o H Aged About 16 Years Rest Of Details Are Filled With The Revision Petition In Closed Envelop ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Ranchiri, District - Balod, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. The present criminal revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the Act of 2015’) against the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) POCSO, Balod, District Balod, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant “G son of H” under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 was rejected and the order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Balod dated 30.07.2025, in Criminal Case No. 63 of 2025 is affirmed. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.10.28 17:55:16 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant admittedly is a juvenile and he is in observation home since 13.08.2025. It is further submitted that as per Section 12 of the Act of 2015, for the purpose of releasing a juvenile on bail, the gravity of the offence is not to be seen. It is also submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court has dismissed the bail application of the applicant considering the merits of the case, but the same would have no relevance while considering the bail application of the juvenile. He would also submit that there is no possibility that after releasing him on bail, he will again come in association of known criminal persons, or there is no reason to believe that release of the applicant is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the juvenile applicant may be released on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the applicant, it is not a fit case where the applicant be enlarged on bail. She would also submit that although the merits of the case and gravity of the offence would not be relevant for consideration of bail application of a juvenile, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, releasing the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice, as the manner in which the deceased was done to death by the juvenile along with other accused persons and the threat to the vicinity apprehending untoward incident from the applicant. The applicant was in association 3 with his friends and committed the present offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to release on bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the present revision as well as case diary. 5. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinunder:- “Section 12:(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a matter of routine, in case an accused person happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained, and is brought before the Board, such person notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other special law, which is in force should be 4 released on bail. But at the same time the letter part of sub-section (1) of Section 12 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual background of a case if it appears to the Court that releasing of said juvenile can bring him into association of the company with which he landed himself in the remand home, or he may get exposed to moral and psychological danger, as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that upon his release from the observation home can lead to exposing the juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may refuse to release the juvenile on bail. 6. In order to examine whether any of three exceptions of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 is present in the case, social status report of the applicant was called for by this Court vide its order dated 12.09.2025 and a copy of which is also placed by the State counsel at the time of hearing of the case in the present revision. 7. From perusal of the social status report of the applicant, it appears that the social and economic condition of the applicant’s family is satisfactory. His behaviour was good with his inmates, he denied commission of offence. Cause of delinquency is lack of proper guidance. It is also reported in the social status report that he is 9th Class failed and has not continued his studies further. His friends are of the same age group and elderly people also. It cannot be said that the parents of the applicant have concern about the future of the applicant, as he committed an act depicting criminal tendency. It cannot be said 5 to be such an act done in a sudden spurt of anger. The present aplicant and others in conflict with law and accused persons assaulted the deceased and committed his murder. The alleged weaon of knife has been seized from the applicant. The applicant was remained in association with his friends and their act shows the criminal tendency with them. The applicant’s parents are not concerned with the welfare of the child, who instead of insisting the applicant to go to school, did not take care of him. In this situation, if the applicant, who is juvenile in conflict with law is released from the observation home, and sent to the same social economic atmosphere, he would be exposed to moral and psychological danger. Further, the risk of a juvenile committing any other offence in future is also likelihood. I do think the gravity of the offence is nowhere concerned with consideration of bail application of a juvenile in conflict with law, but to consider the interest of justice, it does have some bearing. 8. Although the bail may be a rule, but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, where such an offence of murder has been committed, release of juvenile applicant on bail would definitely defeat the ends of justice. One of the exceptional circumstances, wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile is that “in case, the release would defeat the ends of justice”. Justice is not a one-way street that it is only to be appreciated from the point of view of the juvenile in conflict with law. It is also a concept, which would be alive both for the victim and for the society at large. 6 9. In the instant case, taking into consideration the report of the probationary officer as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the status of the co-accused persons, in whose association the applicant was, this Court is of the opinion that if the applicant is released on bail, there is all chances of his exposing to moral as well as psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Appellate Court does not warrant any interference at this juncture, and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, but would fall within the exception carved out in the said section. 11. Accordingly, no good case has been made out for allowing this revision calling for interference with the order under challenge. 12. The criminal revision being devoid of merit, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok