1 2026:CGHC:19898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 590 of 2026 Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nil ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police of Police Station Kotwali District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. This criminal revision is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G), whereby the appeal preferred by the present applicant has been dismissed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.01.2026, the complainant, Laxmi Sonkar, verbally lodged a complaint at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon, stating that on the said date, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 as per her routine, she had set up her vegetable stall in the weekly market, where her daughter Heena Sonkar was also present. Adjacent to her stall, co-accused Sevati Sonkar had set up a stall along with her husband Sohan Sonkar (present applicant). At about 4:30 PM, an altercation arose between Heena Sonkar and Sevati Sonkar along with her husband regarding the placement of the stall. It is alleged that Sohan Sonkar abused Heena Sonkar and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, stating that he would go to the police station along with his wife to lodge a report, he left the place after asking his younger son to remain there. At about 5:00 PM, Sohan Sonkar returned to the spot, accompanied by his elder son Lalla Sonkar. At that time, the complainant’s son, Mohit @ Monu Sonkar, also arrived at the place of occurrence. Upon seeing him, Lalla Sonkar allegedly attacked him from behind with a knife, inflicting injuries on his back and buttocks, and thereafter fled from the spot. The injured was immediately taken to the District Hospital by the persons present at the market. 3. The applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act seeking bail; however, after hearing the parties and perusing the case diary, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), rejected the same vide order dated 16.03.2026. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2026, the applicant preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 65/2026. The learned 3 appellate court, after hearing the parties and examining the record, held that release of the juvenile would not be in his interest, as there exists a likelihood of his coming into association with known criminals and his physical and mental well-being being adversely affected, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present juvenile applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no criminal antecedent registered against him. It is further submitted that the other co-accused person, namely, Sohan Sonkar, who is major in age and involved in the same crime number, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1017/2026, vide order dated 23.03.2026, and on the ground of parity alone, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further contended that no seizure has been effected from the present juvenile applicant. The charge-sheet has already been filed. Accordingly, he prays that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the other co-accused person, namely, Sohan Sonkar, who is major in age and involved in the same crime number, has already been granted bail by this Court 4 in MCRC No. 1017/2026, vide order dated 23.03.2026. The applicant is a juvenile, has no criminal antecedents and no recovery has been made from him and the charge-sheet has already been filed and as such the case of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused person who has granted bail by this Court. Considering the above aspect, I am inclined to allow this criminal revision on the ground of parity. 9. Consequently, criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G) in Crime No. 13/2026 is set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a surety of Rs. 50,000/-along with a bond of same amount which are to be of his natural guardian/father/mother, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance as when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural guardian/father/mother. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan