1 / 3 2025:CGHC:57546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1395 of 2025 XYZ ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Arjunda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 26/11/2025 1. This revision is against the judgment dated 30/10/2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C.) (POCSO) Balod, District Balod, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.121/2025 whereby the order dated 08/10/2025 passed in Crime No.131/2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the application for bail of the applicant was affirmed. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.27 10:38:37 +0530 2 / 3 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the father of the victim, who is a boy aged about 09 years, lodged a report at Police Station, Arjunda alleging therein that on 21/09/2025 while he was teaching his son (victim) then he made a complaint of pain in his anal and something has been stuck there, then on being asked from the victim it was revealed that the applicant and five others have pierced their private part in his anal. Thereafter, an offence for the POCSO was registered and the investigation was carried out and the applicant was arrested. 3. Thereafter, the present applicant had preferred an application under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the J.J. Act, 2015) for his release on bail before the J.J. Board which was rejected and against the said order the applicant preferred a criminal appeal under the J.J. Act, 2015 which too has been rejected. Hence this Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused persons on the similar set of allegations have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. He would next contend that the social investigation report is also in favour of the applicant and the trial court has passed the order against the provisions of J.J. Act, 2000, therefore, the applicant who is in captivity, may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. Perused the Social Investigation Report, which is in favour of the applicant, however, looking to the nature of offence as it is a matter of gang rape that too with a minor boy and the present applicant is the main 3 / 3 accused, in the considered opinion of this Court if the applicant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will come in contact with the known criminals and consequently, the same would affect his mind negatively, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this revision and release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant CRR is rejected. However, the concerned J.J. Board is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously as soon as possible, if there is no legal impediment. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu