1 2026:CGHC:5690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1546 of 2025 1 - Abc (Name And Decryption Of The Applicant Is In The Closed Envelop) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 02/02/2026 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 23.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Additional Charge Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) and Children Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.153/2024, HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.03 14:18:27 +0530 2 upholding the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 222/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 376-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant/mother of the victim lodged a report to the effect that on 17.03.2024 at about 4:00 pm, her daughter, aged about 3 years, was playing in front of their house. After some time, when she could not find her daughter, she inquired with the neighbours. The neighbours told her that a juvenile/applicant had taken her daughter, and they hadn’t seen him return. Then she along with the neighbours, went to the house of the juvenile/applicant, searched for her daughter and went to the bathroom located behind the house. The bathroom door was locked from the inside. They knocked on the door, but there was no response from inside. About 20 minutes later, the juvenile opened the door. At that time, the juvenile appeared frightened and shaken, and his daughter was lying unconscious on the floor, naked. There were bite marks on her face and cheeks. The victim/deceased was 3 taken to the hospital for treatment upon examination by the doctor, she was declared dead. The applicant/juvenile had taken the victim/deceased to the bathroom of his house with the intention of raping her, and when the victim/deceased screamed and resisted, he killed her. 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. The applicant is in observation home since 18.03.2024. 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. One co-accused namely Shankar Yadav has already been granted bail by the trial Court. 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 the applicant is the main accused who was aged about 13 years at the time of the offence, and the applicant committed a heinous offence of rape and murder of a minor girl aged about 3 years. If the applicant is released on bail, there is a 4 possibility that he will again come into the company of criminals. Therefore, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. The mother and father of the victim/deceased are present before this Court today and raised their objection in granting bail to the applicant. 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 psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 7. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 8. By the Additional Sessions Court (FTC), Bilaspur, the appeal of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the social investigation report attached to the case 5 states that the applicant committed the unlawful act under the influence of watching obscene videos and images on a mobile phone, which indicates that the child is not under the control of his guardian/parents. Furthermore, the victim’s family and the applicant’s family reside in the same neighbourhood, which reduces the likelihood of the applicant receiving a safe environment. The applicant committed a crime as serious as the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl, and placing him in an institution is likely to have a positive impact on his behaviour and attitude and provide him with a disciplined environment. 9. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the probation officer that the applicant has lack of guidance and has come in contact with anti-social persons, looking to the overall situation of the crime, it is found that if the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him in moral and psychological danger and the object of justice would be defeated. 10. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 1546/2025 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu