1 2025:CGHC:57767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1212 of 2025 1 - X (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Name Of The Juvenile And Addressare In The Attached Envelope) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandri, District- Raipur (C.G.) … Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Satyendra Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri K.K.Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 27/11/2025 This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children), Act 2015 (for Short " Act of 2015") has been filed challenging the legality, judicial propriety and correctness of order dated 11.080.2025 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court (POCSO), Raipur (CG), in Criminal Appeal 2 No.282/2025 whereby the Ld. Court dismissed the criminal appeal No. 226/2025 preferred by the applicant against the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur dismissing the application for grant of bail by the applicant under Section 12 of Act of 2015. 2. Report has been lodged by the complainant, mother of the minor victim that her three year old daughter was playing the house with her cousin brother, when she went to the applicant’s house. The minor then came out crying and upon inquiry, disclosed that the applicant had made her lie on the bed and inappropriately touched her private parts and was doing unnatural act. The minor narrated about the incident to her mother. Acting on this complaint the police registered Crime No. 76/2025 for the offences under Sections 64 and 65(2) of IPC and 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act and arrested the applicant on 15.04.2025. Statement of the victim was recorded and she was medically examined with the consent of the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants/juveniles-conflict-with-law argued that the provisions of Section 12 of Act of 2015 mandates that " the juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of the probation officer or under the care of any fit person. Provided that such person shall not be released on bail if there appears reasonable ground 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 person's release would defeat the ends of justice". In the case, in hand, learned Court below has given a finding that looking to the seriousness of the 3 offence, appeal is dismissed and the Court below has not considered the provision of Section 12 of Act of 2015 in its proper perspective and thereby committed irregularity while rejecting the appeal. He further submits that in order to find out the physical and mental status of juvenile in conflict with law there is a provision under Section 14 and 15 of Act of 2015. He submits that the provision of Section 15 was considered and the finding under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 has already been given by Juvenile Justice Board to try the offence before the Juvenile Justice Board and not before the Children Court, therefore, the revision should be allowed and the applicants should be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a categorical finding recorded by learned Court below with regard to the seriousness of the offence and also given a finding that in the interest of justice, the applicants juvenile- conflict-with-law shall not be released on bail. It is further submitted that these findings are based on proper assessment of the material placed before it and therefore the finding recorded does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Learned State counsel had apprised this Court about the conduct of the applicants/accused and submits that looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the applicants/accused, they are not entitled to be released on bail and this revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered their rival submissions. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 4 deals with grant of bail to a juvenile and provides as to under what parameters, the bail can be considered. In assessing the merit of rival submissions, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to Section 12 of the Act, 2015: “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 bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or 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 person’s 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 home 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 5 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.” 6. As per learned counsel for the applicant, considering the conduct of the applicant, he is entitled to be released on bail irrespective of the gravity of offence committed, but in the opinion of this Court the consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile delinquents though is entirely different than that of normal consideration of granting bail but still the Court has to consider whether their release would defeat the ‘ends of justice’. The words ‘ends of justice’ should be confined to the fact which shows that grant of bail itself is likely to a result in injustice and as per the exception provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015 if the Court finds that release would defeat the ‘ends of justice’ then bail can be denied to a juvenile. Although, various High Courts in most of the cases while dealing with the provisions of grant of bail as per Section 12 of the Act, 2015 have adopted an approach that a juvenile can be considered to be released on bail irrespective of gravity of offence but I am not convinced that the bail can be claimed by a juvenile as a matter of right and can be granted to the juvenile without considering the gravity of offence and nature of crime committed by him. As per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, it is clear that there was no intent of the legislature to consider the grant of bail to a juvenile as his absolute right and that is why it carved out an exception under which bail can be 6 denied, otherwise there was no occasion to attach proviso with Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015. My view gets strength by the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201 in which the Supreme Court in paragraphs-3 and 23 of its judgment has observed as under: “3. The Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or aSpecial Court for holding trial of children/juveniles by the Juvenile Court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a Juvenile Court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held? XXXX XXXX XXXX 23. Hence, while the courts must be sensitive in dealing with the juvenile who is involved in cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang rape, murder and host of other offences, the accused cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting to prove himself as a minor when the documentary evidence to prove his minority gives rise to a reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority. Under such circumstance, the medical evidence based on scientific investigation will have to be given due weight and precedence over the evidence based on school administration records which give rise to hypothesis and speculation about the age of the accused. The matter however would stand on 7 a different footing if the academic certificates and school records are alleged to have been withheld deliberately with ulterior motive and authenticity of the medical evidence is under challenge by the prosecution.” 7. However, in the case of Om Prakash (supra), there was some dispute with regard to the age of the accused but it is clearly observed by the Supreme Court while considering the crime committed by the juvenile and also considering the beneficial legislation i.e Act, 2015, has observed that the gravity of offence and nature of crime cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), while considering the provisions of Section12(1) of the Act, 2015 has observed as under:- “30. Thus, it is no ultimate rule that a juvenile below the age of 16 years has to be granted bail and can be denied the privilege only on the first two of the grounds mentioned in the proviso, that is to say, likelihood of the juvenile on release being likely to be brought in association with any known criminal or in consequence of being released exposure of the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger. It can be equally refused on the ground that releasing a juvenile, that includes a juvenile below 16 years would “defeat the ends of justice.” In the opinion of this Court the words “defeat the ends of justice” employed in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act postulate as one of the relevant consideration, the nature and gravity of the offence though not the only consideration in applying the aforesaid part of the dis entitling legislative edict. Other factors such as the specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child would also be relevant that are spoken of under Section 18 of the Act.” 8 8. This case involves sensitive allegations of sexual assault on a child below the age of 5 invoking the provisions of the JJ Act and the POCSO Act aimed at safeguarding children while balancing the rights and status of the juvenile accused under the law. Such unnatural acts shatter societal trust and innocence demanding stringent denial of bail to shield the vulnerable child from influence and uphold justice’s moral imperative against predation on the defenseless. 9. In the present case also as observed by the trial Court while rejecting the application for release the juvenile on bail that before committing a crime, the behaviour of the applicant was also not proper even though they were aged below 18 years and the manner in which they has committed the crime shows that they have sound mind and were also fully aware of the crime which they had committed. Further, it has been observed that even after committing the crime, he had not shown remorse or regret in any form. 10. The reivisonal powers under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act circumscribe interference absence jurisdictional error; here, JJB and Sessions Court rightly prioritized child protection over routine bail for heinous POCSO offences against toddlers. Philosophical reflection reveals such acts as profound societal ruptures-violating the innate dignity and inviolabilities of childhood, echoing Kantian imperatives against treating humans as means, and underscoring eudemonia as communal virtue demanding collective vigilance to restore moral order. As a general parlance, bail is the rule in the case of a juvenile and 9 places the burden for denying the bail on the prosecution to show that on the parameters specified in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act, 2015, bail should be denied to a juvenile. But here in this case, I am of the opinion that since at the time of committing the offence, the age of the applicant was 15 years and if he is released on bail the expression defeat the ‘ends of justice’ would frustrate the confidence as repose for the society. No doubt, the Juvenile Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reformation of the juvenile/child in conflict with law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser. Thus, while considering the room for granting the bail to a juvenile, the Court has to consider the surrounding facts and circumstances. The alleged act of the applicant/accused itself shakes the conscience of the society. The offence is obviously heinous in nature and if he is released on bail, it would defeat the ‘ends of justice’. 11. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present revision filed under Section 102 of the Act, 2015 does not deserve to be allowed and accordingly, the same stands rejected. The order passed by the both the Courts rejecting the request for grant of bail to the applicant is hereby affirmed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.12.05 11:24:26 +0530