1 2026:CGHC:5226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 92 of 2026 Abc (Minor) Nill ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 30/01/ 2026 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2025 upholding the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 252/2025 whereby the bail application of the applicant for grant of bail in Crime No. 516/2025 registered at P.S. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.03 14:54:26 +0530 2 City Kotwali, Raigarh for the offence u/s 123, 275, 286 of BNS and section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, was rejected. 2. (i) As per the prosecution case, on 09.10.2025 when the police was on patrol, they received information that a juvenile offender was keeping a large quantity of Butrum narcotic injections at his home and selling them to young minors for drug use. He was also reportedly administering the injections to boys at his house. On such information, the police reached the location and they found 3-4 boys near the house who fled upon seeing the police whereas the the boy was found in the courtyard of the house. A search of the juvenile offender's room was conducted and inside a cupboard, 10 packets of Butorphanol Tartrate Injection USP 2 mg Butrum were found, each packet containing 5 injections, totaling 50 narcotic injections. (ii) It is alleged that the juvenile offendor did not possess any license or documents. Subsequently, on a memorandum statement, the juvenile applicant stated that he had purchased 18 packets from Patna, Bihar, a week earlier, and had sold 8 packets at a rate of Rs. 250/- per injection, with 10 packets remaining for sale. (iii) In the presence of witnesses, 10 packets of Tartrate Injection USP 2 mg Butrum, each containing 5 injections, totaling 50 injections, worth 10,000/-, along with 500/- in cash from the sale ₹ ₹ proceeds, were seized from the possession of the juvenile offender. It is alleged that despite the knowledge that Butorphanol Tartrate Injection is a harmful substance and that its consumption can endanger or harm human life, he was selling it to minor children. By inducing minor children to use these narcotic injections, the juvenile offender was causing adverse effects on their brains, leading to addiction and negative health consequences, and potentially pushing 3 them towards criminal activity. Subsequently he was arrested. After a complete investigation, the charge sheet was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on an order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Juvenile in Conflict with Law V Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided on 14th August, 2024 and submits that the learned courts below have not considered the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act while rejecting the bail application. He submits that as per the Social Status Report, no other criminal tendencies or criminal antecedents have been found against the child and it is necessary to keep him connected with education. The social status report recommends the release of the applicant. He further submits that both the learned Courts 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 grant of bail and submits that from the possession of the juvenile applicant 50 narcotic injections were seized and looking to the nature of the planned crime committed by the applicant, he may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. 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 4 psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 7. The Social Investigation report submitted by the Probation Officer shows that the Child has passed class 9th and has dropped out of school for about 2 – 3 years, currently he is preparing for the private examination of class 10th, no other criminal antecedents are reported against him, therefore, keeping the child under proper protection and providing regular counseling appears to be in the child’s paramount interest. 8. In this case, the trial court observed that the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice and rejected the bail application. 9. The learned appellate Court by impugned order dated 31.12.2025, has observed that although the social investigation report shows that the juvenile has no other criminal record and the environment around the child is also normal but the applicant juvenile is accused of bringing large quantity of Butorphanol Tartrate Injections from Patna (Bihar) in a planned manner and selling it to the minor children around him, he was aware of the nature of the criminal act being committed by him and he committed the crime in a planned manner. The appellatel Court further observed that it is not the gravity of offence but considering the planned nature of crime, granting benefit of bail to the juvenile would seem to defeat the purpose of justice and accordingly, rejected the appeal. 10. Having thus considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the over all facts situation of the case, I am of the opinion that presently the interest of the juvenile applicant not lies in releasing him on bail but in keeping him in child’s protection home so that he can get child welfare schemes and proper 5 regular counseling. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board in the impugned orders warranting interference in the revision. 11. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- S Sd (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao