1 2025:CGHC:59864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1268 of 2025 1 - A ( In Juvenile Observation Home) Nil ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. Present is a 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 order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure- P/1), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 345/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 has been dismissed, and the order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur dated 01.08.2025 in Criminal Case No. 55/2025, is affirmed. The applicant is a juvenile in conflict with the law who has been in custody since 21-12-2024, in the offence of Crime No. 474/2024, registered at the police station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.12.19 17:12:13 +0530 2 2. This is the second round of proceedings in which the applicant is claiming his release on bail. Earlier, the applicant had filed a criminal revision No. 154/2025, before this Court under Section 102 of the Act of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2025, thereafter, the applicant again moved his bail application before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur which was dismissed on 01.08.2025, and the Criminal Appeal No. 345/2025 has also been dismissed. Hence, this criminal revision. 3. In the present criminal revision, on 17.10.2025, the notice was issued to the complainant/victim for their appearance and to make a submission on the present criminal revision. After service of notice upon the complainant/victim, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate, appeared on her behalf and filed a written objection on behalf of the victim on 18.11.2025 and raised his submission in the proceeding. 4. On 18.11.2025, during the hearing when this Court found from the document annexed at page No.234 which relates to the order-sheet of the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur dated 17.06.2025, that certain incident of Marpeet was occurred with the applicant in the observation home and an inquiry report was submitted before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur, the said inquiry report was called by this Court from the State counsel and in pursuance thereof, learned counsel appearing for the State has produced a copy of said report on 09.12.2025 which is reiterated hereinbelow: /्ቚतिवेदन// तिवेधि से सेघ्ቧर बालक आयु्ቧ पाण्डेयु क सेथ हुई घटन क सेबा ेሰ" ाሞच सेतिेሰति ቛኋर ाሞच कर ्ቚतिवेदन ्ቚस् तिकयु गयु हु(। उ्ሹ ्ቚतिवेदन ेሰ" तिदनक 10.06.2025 क, हुई घटन क सेबा ेሰ" घटन ेሰ" सेधिल्቎ बालक, एवे घटन क सेेሰयु उपाቝኌस्थ बालक, से बायुन दाሞ तिकयु गयु एवे घटन क सेेሰयु उपाቝኌस्थ सेस्थग केሰचर0 हुउसे फादर एवे सेरቌኋगडे से भी0 घटन क सेबा ेሰ" बायुन दाሞ तिकयु गयु हु(। उ्ሹ बायुन, क अवेल,कन पाश्च ाሞच सेतिेሰति न पायु हु( तिक बालक (foyksfir) और (foyksfir) क बा0च तिकसे0 बा क, लकर वेद तिवेवेद द,न, हु0 रफा से हुई हु( और गस्से ेሰ" आकर द,न, न एक दसेर क, च,ट पाहुचए हु(। बालक (foyksfir) और (foyksfir) द,न, क शर0र ेሰ" हुल्क च,ट क तिनशन दखन पार पायु गयु हु(, उ्ሹ द,न, बालक, क घटन क सेबा ेሰ" कयुलयु क, ाሞनकर0 3 हु,न पार द,न, बालक, क, भीतिवेष्यु ेሰ" इसे ्ቚकर क< घटन घतिट न हु, सेेሰझाईश द हुए सेस्थग हु0 ्ቚथतिेሰक उपाचर क लभी तिदयु गयु हु(। ाሞच ्ቚतिवेदन ेሰ" सेल्ሿ आवेदन पा्ቔ ेሰ" उቤኔधिख शब्द पाB्ቓD तिनरथक वे तिनर र हु(।" 5. With respect to the health condition of the applicant, vide order dated 18.11.2025, a report was also called from the District Medical Board, Raipur after examination of the applicant because the applicant has also raised the ground of ailment that he is suffering from erruptive Xanthometosis Dyslipedemia with CNS involvement and the medical treatment document of the applicant has also been annexed with the present criminal revision. In compliance with the order dated 18.11.2025, the medical report of the applicant was also submitted on 09.12.2025 by the learned State counsel, and the said medical report dated 05.12.2025 is also necessary to be reproduced herein below: “MEDICAL CERTIFICATE We the members of District Medical Board Raipur have examined (deleted) S/o (deleted), age 17 Yrs/Male along with photocopied medical records of 87 leafs and MLC physical examination report presented before us. A is a known case of Eruptive Xanthomatosis with CNS involvement with Dyslipidemia with Anxiety disorder with alleged physical assault. The opinion of the Board is as follow- 1. There is no evidence of any recent external injury as per physical examination record. 2. For anxiety disorder patient is currently on treatment (Tab. Nexito 20mg OD, Tab. Fostera 5mg OD) from Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur and is currently doing well. He needs to continue medications and regular follow- ups. 3. For Eruptive Xanthomatosis with CNS involvement with Dyslipidemia, he needs to be re-evaluated by a Neurophysician.” 6. Vide order dated 17.10.2025 in the present criminal revision, the social status report of the applicant from the concerned probation officer was also called, which has also been submitted by the State counsel on 18.11.2025, in which it is recommended to give the custody of the applicant to his parents. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is admittedly a juvenile and he is in observation home since 21.12.2024. 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. The applicant is suffering from various ailments, including a psychiatric disorder, during his stay at the 4 observation home, and his health condition is deteriorating. There is no possibility that after releasing him on bail, he will again come in association with any criminal person, and there is no reason to believe that the release of the applicant is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. She would further submit that the applicant is in custody since 21.12.2024, and till date, the evidence has not been started, though the charges have been framed on 21.05.2025. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence and the period of custody of the applicant, he may be released on bail. She would rely upon the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 9566/2024 (Juvenile in Conflict with Law Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected in Criminal Revision No. 154/2025. There is no change in circumstances as the trial of the case could not be started for want of a record of the juvenile justice board, as the same was sent to the appellate Court in which the appeal has been filed by the applicant under Section 101 of the Act of 2015. The conduct of the applicant is also shown in the report dated 17.06.2025 before the juvenile justice board, that an incident of Marpeet occurred in the observation home between the applicant and another person, and it is reported that the altercation was from both sides. He would also submit that the health condition of the applicant is presently stable; therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Objector would also submit that present is a successive revision petition claiming bail of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected, and the applicant, in the garb of a review of its earlier order, is claiming bail by filing the present criminal revision, which is not permissible as there is no change in 5 circumstances. He would also submit that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be recorded for want of the record of the juvenile justice board, as the same was sent for deciding the appeal filed by the applicant. He would also refer to page No. 234 of the petition in which a report was submitted before the juvenile justice board with respect to the incident of Marpeet with the applicant, and would submit that from the report, the applicant is also found involved in the alleged commission of Marpeet. He would further submit that the Superintendent, Government Observation Home, Mana Camp, Raipur, has lodged a complaint against the parents of the applicant on 12.06.2025 with respect to their conduct in the observation home, as they created a nuisance on 11.06.2025 at the observation home when they came there to meet the applicant. With the intervention of police officers, the father of the applicant was being taken away, which clearly demonstrates their conduct. He would also submit that the first bail application of the applicant is dismissed after considering the entire aspect of the matter, and there is no change in circumstances and therefore, the present revision is also liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition, as well as the case diary. 11. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate If Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereunder: "Section 12:(1) When any person accused of a ballable or non- ballable 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 ball 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. 6 A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act 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 released on bail. But at the same time the latter 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 sald 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 ball. 12. In order to examine whether any three exceptions of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 are present in the case, the social status report of the applicant was called vide order dated 17.10.2025, and the same was submitted on 18.11.2025 by the learned State counsel. According to the social status report dated 24.10.2025 which was submitted on 18.11.2025, it was reported that during the stay of the applicant at observation home his conduct is good and handing over of his custody under the observation of his parents is in the welfare of the child, however, from the order-sheet dated 17.06.2025 of the learned Juvenile Justice Board annexed at page No. 234 in the petition and the report dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the Superintendent Government Observation Home, Raipur, report of probation officer is self-contradictory. Further, the conduct of the father of the applicant is also complained on 12.06.2025 (Annexure-O/1) that he too has created a nuisance on 11.06.2025 at the observation home. The exception of Section 12(1) of the 7 Act of 2015 has also been considered in the earlier order dated 03.04.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No. 154/2025. 13. It transpires that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board on 07.01.2025, which travelled up to this Court in Criminal Revision No. 154/2025, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2025. Thereafter, the applicant again filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, and then, after rejection of the same, it travelled up to the present criminal revision. 14. So far as the ailment of the applicant is concerned, from perusal of the medical report dated 05.12.2025, he is under regular follow-up and his condition is presently normal, and therefore, this Court does not find any sufficient ground for releasing the applicant on bail on medical grounds. 15. So far as the conduct of the applicant in the observation home is concerned, it transpires from the report dated 17.06.2025, which is submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board with respect to the alleged commission of Marpeet, that the applicant is also involved in the Marpeet. Further from the document submitted by the objector/victim that is the complaint to the police dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure-O/1), it transpires that the complaint was lodged against the father of the applicant for the alleged nuisance created by him at the observation home on 11.06.2025. The conduct of the applicant, as well as his parents, is also a crucial aspect for releasing a juvenile in conflict with the law. Therefore, this Court does not find the conduct of the applicant, as well as his father, supportive of releasing the applicant on bail. 16. The third limb of submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is a delay in the trial, and the applicant has been in custody since 21.12.2024. It further transpires from the order sheet that the charge was framed on 21.05.2025, and thereafter trial could not be started for want of a record of the juvenile justice board, as the same was sent for consideration of the appeal filed by the applicant. Since the first bail application of the 8 applicant has been rejected, and ultimately the Criminal Revision No. 154/2025 has also been rejected vide order dated 03.04.2025 by this Court, charges have been framed on 21.05.2025, the ground of delay in trial and custody of the applicant since 21.12.2024 is also not found sufficient to release him on bail. 17. Although the bail may be a rule but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile. Under the alleged offence committed with the minor victim, release of the 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, which is only to be appreciated from the point of view of a juvenile in conflict with the law. It is also a concept that would be alive both for the victim and for society at large. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the document submitted by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate Court does not warrant any interference 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. The consideration in the order cited by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Juvenile in conflict with law vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts and consideration of the present case, and no benefit could be extended to the applicant by the said. 19. Accordingly, no good ground has been made out for allowing this criminal revision calling for interference with the order under challenge, and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok