1 / 6 2025:CGHC:55812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1385 of 2025 ABC (Juvenile Conflict With The Law) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P S Singhoda Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. This revision is against the judgment dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. H-74/2025, arising out of order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) in Crime VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.11.17 18:35:29 +0530 2 / 6 No.65/2025 (Annexure A/2) rejected the application for bail of the applicant was affirmed. 2. As per the case of the prosecution that on 07/08/2025, information about an accident was received via mobile phone on Dial 112 Upon receiving the information, police constables numbered 261, 743, 807, 612, and 333, who were in the Dial 112 vehicle, proceeded towards Kharniabahal village, where the driver of a black and white Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number CG 12/BF-4655, driving rashly and negligently, hit a Hero Splendor motorcycle, causing an accident in which the motorcycle driver, Digambar Patel, sustained serious injuries. The Ertiga car bearing registration number CG 04/LM-0358, which was acting as a pilot vehicle for the Scorpio, was also intercepted and apprehended. Upon checking both vehicles, 6 stolen goats, 3 stolen male goats, one iron dagger, and a total of 30.0 kg of cannabis were found. These items were seized by the police in the presence of witnesses. During questioning, it was revealed that the cannabis was brought from Melchamunda village, Odisha, and the goats and male goats were stolen. In addition to the accused Sultan Khan, who was in the Scorpio vehicle, three other people were apprehended, and three people in the Ertiga car were also arrested by the police. When all the accused were given notices under Section 179 of the Indian Citizen Security Code to produce documents related to the possession of the said items, they stated that they did not have any documents. Following this, all the accused were arrested, and a case was registered against them at Singhora Police Station under Crime Number 65/2025 under Sections 20(B), 29(1) NDPS Act, and Sections 281, 3 / 6 125(A), 303(2), 3(5) of the Indian Justice Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and the investigation was initiated. During the investigation, when it was revealed that the accused Sultan Khan was a minor, his case was separated and he was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund on 08/08/2025, from where he was sent to a juvenile observation home. 3. The applicant has preferred an application U/s 12 of juvenile justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 for his released-on Bail before Principal Judge juvenile justice board Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) which has been rejected on dated 19.09.2025 thereafter applicant preferred a criminal appeal U/s 101 of juvenile justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal preferred by applicant, hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the lower appellant court has ought to have seen learned juvenile board has not given to finding how he would be exposed to such dangers on the basis of which material the board had come to this conclusion. The Court below not received any report against the applicant after released of the juvenile may expose his to physical or psychological danger. The courts below are ignored the act of the juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) act it is clear mention that section 12 of the such act the probable logical meaning of using of phraseology like "reasonable grounds for believing" in section 12(1) of the Act 2015 clearly indicates that "reasonable grounds for believing" is not same thing some this 4 / 6 higher than that is that "reasonable grounds for believing" is not the same thing something higher than that It is more than prima facie grounds the Board that the release of the juvenile is likely to put this under either of the three conditions mentioned in S. 12(1) of the Act and provision requires the existence of such facts and circumstances of law. He further submits that the conclusion and finding arrived by the courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside. The learned courts below are out have seen that applicant is not present in the incident took place on the date of incident only alleged that present applicant on the basis of memorandum of the co-accused, that is not an admissible part of evidence therefore he is entitle for grant of bail. The both courts below out have seen that prosecution not been collected any legal evidence against the applicant only collected memorandum statement of the co-accused which is not legal evidence. Therefore, orders of the learned court below are liable to be set-aside. It therefore, prayed that this Court may be passed to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 and that this Court may kindly be pleased to grant bail to the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. Considering the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 which provides for bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non- bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or 5 / 6 appears or 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 person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home1[or a place of safety, as the case may be] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. 7. Considering the social investigation report which is in favour of the applicant and also considering the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, I am inclined to allow this revision and release the applicant on bail. 8. Consequently, the revision is allowed and order 07.10.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. H-74/2025, arising out of order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile 6 / 6 Justice Board, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) in Crime No.65/2025 (Annexure A/2) are set aside. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a surety of Rs.10,000/- which is to be of his guardian to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance as and when directed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant