1 2026:CGHC:5224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 55 of 2026 XYZ Nil ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Deweangan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, 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 15.12.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2025 upholding the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 588/2025 whereby the bail application of the applicant relating to Crime No.708/25 registered at P.S. Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence u/s 65(2)(M), 65(2) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 15.10.2025, the complainant lodged ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.03 14:57:38 +0530 2 a report in police station regarding rape of her minor daughter by the juvenile applicant to the effect that in the night of 14.10.2025, between 8.00 to 8.30 pm, her elder daughter the victim who was student of Class 2, had gone to play at the house of her neighbour. After playing, the victim girl returned home wearing her under-pant. When the complainant asked why her underpants were wet , the victim told that she had gone to play at her elder parents house, where she was getting down the stairs to return home, at that moment, the juvenile appellant came behind her , caught hold of her hand, took her inside the room, made her lie down on the sand and after removing her underpants committed wrong act with her and further threatened her not to tell any one. The applicant checked her daughter’s underpants and found white, watery stain on them. She then informed her husband about the incident. Based on such report offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He submits that the medical report does not support the prosecution case and even as per the Social Status Report 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 and it supports 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 the juvenile applicant has committed sexual atrocity on the victim girl who is aged about 6 to 7 years. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. Notice has been served to the informant/complainant/victim, but nobody has chosen to appear. 6. The Social Status Report has been submitted after home study. The investigation result which is part of the said report summarily reveals the following with certain suggestions : “Lack of proper guidance, misuse of mobile phone and teenage mania are the main suggested causes of problems. The accused 3 admits the crime. Lack of information and the frenzy of adolescence are the major factors. The child’s conduct and behavior in the institution is good. This is the first crime of the child. He has studied upto 8th Class. The child needs to be reengaged in education/skill development training.” 7. 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. 8. In this case, the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicant is released on bail there is a possibility of his exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger. The Appellate Court also observed that the applicant is accused of committing rape with a girl of 6 years and 8 months and if the applicant is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. 9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the above facts situation of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revision. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao