2026:CGHC:1232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 22 of 2026 1 - A Juvenile In Conflict With Law ( Tm) Nill ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District- Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Supriya Upasane, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 08/01/2026 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, read with Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/10/2025 whereby the bail application of the juvenile was rejected by the learned Additional/Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 471/2025. The present revision further arises out of the order dated 22/09/2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, District Raipur ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.22 12:11:47 +0530 (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 181/2024. The applicant named above respectfully begs to prefer this memorandum of criminal revision petition against the aforesaid orders. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25/03/2024 the complainant, who is the mother of the deceased Mohit Sonkar, lodged a report at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.), stating that the dead body of her son was found lying near the B.S.U.P. Colony, Bhatagaon, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.). It was alleged that multiple injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the deceased Mohit Sonkar was working at a liquor shop situated at Bhatagaon. It is alleged that one of the adult accused, namely Narayan Sahu, had come to the said liquor shop to purchase liquor, during which the deceased allegedly snatched money and/or liquor from him. On account of this incident, it is alleged that the adult accused Narayan Sahu, in connivance with the present applicant, entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. As a result thereof, it is further alleged that the accused persons bore enmity against the deceased. The prosecution further alleges that on the date of the incident, i.e., during the intervening night of 24/03/2024 and 25/03/2024, the adult accused Narayan Sahu allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 120/- to the present applicant for committing the murder of the deceased. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, it is alleged that the present applicant assaulted the deceased with a knife, causing fatal injuries, as a result of which the deceased died. Thereafter, the present applicant is alleged to have fled from the spot. After the incident, the complainant lodged the aforesaid report, on the basis of which Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.), registered an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No. 126/2024. It is pertinent to mention that on the date of the alleged occurrence, the present applicant was a juvenile. On the basis of the said FIR and during the course of investigation, the police arrested the present applicant along with the other accused persons for the aforesaid offences and proceeded with further investigation in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned orders dated 22/09/2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) and dated 17/10/2025 passed by the learned Additional/Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 471/2025 are bad in law, illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, inasmuch as both the Courts below have rejected the bail application of the applicant on erroneous, speculative and untenable grounds without appreciating the mandatory nature of Section 12 of the Act, which provides that a juvenile shall ordinarily be released on bail unless there exist reasonable grounds to believe that such release would bring him into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice; it is submitted that no such reasonable or tangible material exists on record to attract the said exceptions, and the learned Sessions Judge has merely relied upon vague apprehensions while affirming the illegal order of the Juvenile Justice Board, thereby failing to correct the manifest illegality and injustice occasioned to the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is innocent, has been falsely implicated in a fabricated and concocted prosecution story, and that even otherwise the facts do not disclose commission of any offence under Sections 302 or 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the juvenile applicant, who has no criminal antecedents and belongs to a poor, respectable and peace-loving family. It is further contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident, nor is there any independent or reliable material to connect the applicant with the alleged crime, and the police have arrested the applicant merely on suspicion without conducting a fair and proper investigation. Learned counsel also submits that the alleged offence is triable by the Juvenile Justice Board, and therefore the gravity attached to the offence stands diluted in view of the special protective and reformative scheme of the Act; it is further urged that the applicant has been in custody since 26/03/2024, and his continued detention is causing grave hardship to him and his family members, which is contrary to the rehabilitative object of juvenile jurisprudence. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer, which is in favour of the applicant and clearly indicates that his release on bail would not expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger nor would it defeat the ends of justice. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, and the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the impugned orders with no likelihood of absconding. The applicant undertakes to face the trial, cooperate with the proceedings, furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the applicant, being a juvenile, deserves to be released on bail in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that the allegations against the juvenile are serious in nature, involving offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the role attributed to the applicant is grave and active, and his release on bail may adversely affect the course of trial and defeat the ends of justice. Learned State counsel further submits that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Sessions Judge have passed well-reasoned orders after due consideration of the material on record, which do not call for any interference. It is therefore prayed that the criminal revision be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 clearly provides that a juvenile shall ordinarily be released on bail, unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that such release is likely to bring him into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Section 12 (1) which is extracted below for ready reference: “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law:- (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non- bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or borught before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, 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 : Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.” 7. In the present case, considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, further considering the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer, which is in favour of the applicant in conflict with law, and also considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since about 1 year and 10 months, this Court finds that his continued detention would be contrary to the rehabilitative object of the Juvenile Justice Act. This Court also takes note of the fact that the co-accused Narayan Sahu has already been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 146/2024 vide judgment dated 30/12/2024. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and looking to the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, this Court is inclined to allow the criminal revision. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. Resultant, this revision is allowed and the orders impugned passed by the appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board are hereby quashed. It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- by his father with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before it. It is further directed that it shall be duty of the father of applicant to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board as and when directed by it and he shall take proper care that the applicant does not come into association of any person of criminal background. Sd Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Arpan Judge