1 2026:CGHC:11382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 300 of 2026 1 - A Juvenile In Conflict With Law (M) Nil. ... Applicant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Sarguja (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10/03/ 2026 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 438 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned Children Court/Additional Session Judge, Fast Track special Court (POCSO Act), Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2026, arising out of the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 527/2025 registered at Police Station Gandi Nagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 103(1) BNS was rejected. 2 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that a missing report was lodged by the mother of the victim at Police Station Gandh Nagar, stating that since 04.08.2025, around 2:30 pm, her minor daughter has been missing. Based on the complaint, the police initiated an investigation. During the course of the investigation, the juvenile in conflict with the law was arrested in connection with the aforementioned crime. Pursuant to his memorandum statement, the skeleton of the victim was recovered on 11.11.2025, which was found covered with stones under a pond. After completing the investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is submitted that the applicant has been arrested by the concerned police station solely on the basis of a memorandum statement recorded by the police, and no incriminating evidence has been collected. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant is a minor, and there is no reliable evidence collected by the prosecution to implicate him in the aforesaid crime. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in the observation home since 11.11.2025. The social status report is not adverse to the applicant. There is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have rejected bail in a mechanical manner. Considering 3 the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that a mobile phone has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, from which photos of the victim have been recovered, indicating a love affair between the applicant and the victim. He further submits that the applicant committed the murder of the victim by strangulation, and pursuant to the applicant's memorandum statement, the skeleton of the victim was recovered, with the DNA report also being positive. Hence, considering the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, he may not be released on bail. 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. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicants’ appeals and warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) and affirmed the said order. 4 7. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and from the social status report it is evident that the applicant has studied up to Class 9th, left his studies thereafter, consumes alcohol and it is clear from the entire record that the offence has been committed in a pre-planned manner. The applicant is not under the control of his parents and granting bail to the applicant at this stage would result in a lack of proper care and protection, likely expose him to moral and psychological risks, and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. The application is dismissed. 8. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.