1 2026:CGHC:1772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 39 of 2026 ABC ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the Juvenile-ABC under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) and Children Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.73/2025, arising out of order dated 20.11.2025 in Crime No.280/2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, District VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.01.14 17:29:12 +0530 2 Dhamtari (C.G.), whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts of this case are that as per prosecution story in brief is that the complainant has lodged report to the concerned P.S. Dhamtari alleging that on 13.07.2024 i.e. the date of incident at about 9.00 p.m. the applicant who was a drug addict, stabbed with knife on the injured in the fish market with intention to commit his murder. On the basis of the said report, police registered the offence under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. against the applicant and arrested on 14.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The present Juvenile applicant has neither assaulted upon the deceased person nor committed murder to the deceased person in the ambulance vehicle nor committed any aforesaid offence as alleged by the prosecution against him. On the basis of memorandum statement, the applicant has involved accused person in this case, but the present Juvenile applicant has not committed any aforesaid offences. He further submits that the present Juvenile applicant has falsely been implicated in this case, because, no prove of allegation has made against him and social report has not supported the case of the present Juvenile applicant. The prosecution has not direct allegation made against the present Juvenile applicant, because no seizure of seized articles has collected by the prosecution in respect of present Juvenile applicant. The offence which has been alleged against the 3 applicant/juvenile is not true, only on the basis of the memorandum, he has been arrested. Nothing has been seized from the applicant. It is therefore, that this Court may be pleased to allow this criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed in criminal appeal No. 73/2025 arising out of order dated 20.11.2025 in Crime no. 280/2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) and applicant may kindly be released on bail, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile-ABC and submits that the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is undisputed that at the time of commission of offence, juvenile in conflict with law was below 18 years. Learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned Sessions Court have taken into consideration the ghastly and abominable crime committed by the juvenile. They have also taken note of the report of the Probationary Officer. It is true that in the case of a child who is in conflict with law, approach of the court in the matter of grant of bail with or without surety should be liberal and pragmatic but then the Court is also required to see that such release of juvenile may not expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. This apart, the Court is also required to record its satisfaction that release of a child in conflict with law is not likely to bring him into association with 4 any known criminal. The law mandates that normally in such matters it would not be appropriate to keep the juvenile in confinement but then it is also desirable that the court is required to see prima facie criminal delinquency of a child in conflict with law. 7. On perusal of the record including the social status report, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, and the report of the probationary officer the juvenile is a drug addict and smoking. He has deprave and malign mentality and therefore Section 12 of the Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to give advantage to only juvenile in conflict with law ignoring the concern of the society. 8. In view of above consideration as also the fact that the revisionist, who is a drug addict and on the date of incident, he was under the influence of drugs, had stabbed the injured with knife, causing injuries on his chest and elbow, in the considered opinion of this Court, releasing the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice and therefore I feel declined to interfere with the impugned orders. 9. Accordingly, the instant revision of the applicant filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant/Arpan