1 2026:CGHC:1550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 37 of 2026 1 - XYZ Address In The Enclosed Envelope ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kumar kashyap, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) and Children Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal Case No. 238/2025, upholding the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.01.12 16:55:07 +0530 2 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 1057/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 287, 118(2), 326 (N), 109, 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 10.09.2025, the complainant lodged a complaint stating therein that he had a tea stall in Vyapar Vihar in which his daughter Sheetal Baghel was working. On the date of the incident i.e. 10.09.2025 at about 5:00 pm, when Sanju Singh Thakur and the appellant (juvenile) came to this daughter’s shop and asked her to come with him, then the customers at the shop explained to them, and then they left the shop. After this, again at about 7:30 pm, Sanju Singh Thakur and the appellant came there and abused her daughter by threatening to kill her and, with the intention of killing her, poured petrol on her daughter and set her on fire with a matchstick, due to which her daughter was badly burned. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further 3 submits that nothing has been seized from the present applicant and the main accused is Sanju Singh Thakur. The applicant is in the observation home since 16.09.2025. He further submits that 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. The learned Court below have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail. However, she submits that the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and the applicant has no criminal record. 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. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer. A bare perusal of it would 4 show that the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The trail Court as well as appellate Court have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the 5 trial Court. 8. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu