1 2025:CGHC:40280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 920 of 2025 Abc Child In Conflict With Law (In Protection Home) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the In Charge, Police Station Excise Circle Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Purnchand, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11/08/ 2025 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) (under POCSO Act), Bastar Place SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.14 11:31:07 +0530 2 Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.19/2025 upholding the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, District Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.17/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 34(1)A, 36, 59-A of the Excise Act was rejected. 2. The prosecution's case, shortly, is that on June 1, 2025, based on information from an informant, excise officials raided the spot and seized 50 bottles of foreign liquor, each containing 180 ml, from the applicant's possession. On further interrogation, he told that he had hidden the liquor boxes under the culvert. On investigation at the place mentioned by him, 1200 bottles of 180 ml capacity filled in 24 brown boxes (50 pieces in each box) were recovered from under the culvert. Thus, a total of 225 liters of foreign liquor was seized from the applicant. This led to the registration of an offense against the applicant. Following sufficient evidence, the applicant was apprehended and sent to the Observation Home. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. With no criminal antecedents, the applicant poses no risk of being exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger upon release. However, both courts below have 3 mechanically rejected the bail application. Considering the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the applicant may be granted bail. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail plea, submitting that mother of the applicant has passed away, he was involved in the alleged crime along with two major co-accused, and therefore, granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate. 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 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 them 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 4 warranted no interference with the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and affirmed the said order. 8. From the social status report of the applicant, it is also mentioned that the applicant was not living with his family and after the death of his mother, he residing with her aunt. Her mother died 10 years ago. Given the involvement of two major co-accused who are absconding, releasing the applicant on bail poses a significant risk of him re- associating with them, potentially harming his physical, mental, and moral well-being. Moreover, the charge-sheet has not been filed. Upon careful consideration of all these factors, I conclude that granting bail to the applicant would compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned orders 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. A copy of this order be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, District Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham