1 2026:CGHC:7879 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 148 of 2026 ABC (The name and address of applicant separately filed in closed envelop) (In Judicial Custody) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, Outpost Jevra Sirsa District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Ashish Gupta, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 12/02/ 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 30.12.2025 passed by the Court of learned additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Children Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G) in Criminal Appeal No. 586/2025 upholding the order dated 19.12.2025 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Durg, rejected the bail application of the applicant in Crime No. 380/2025 ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.17 10:21:08 +0530 2 registered at Police Station Pulgaon Police Chowki Jevra Sirsa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) and 311 of BNS was rejected. 2. The juvenile applicant is accused of looting the mobile phone and money from the complainant and assaulting him. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.09.2025, the complainant lodged a report stating that he is working as a delivery boy in Zomato, Nehru Nagar Zone. On 26.08.2025 at about 01.30 a.m., in the night he stopped to pass urine near village Karahidih, Indira Nagar Vriddha Ashram. At the same time three boys came to him, showed him a knife, took out the key from his motorcycle and started demanding drugs from him. When he refused, they stabbed him with a sharp edged knife injuring him in the shoulder and chest and snatched Rs. Rs.500/- kept in the purse and mobile. On such intimation, the merg was registered and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The dead-body was identified as Shiv Prasad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the crime in question and the juvenile applicant has been arrested only on suspicion, after recording the memorandum statement of the other juvenile offender in other Crime. He further submits that there was long delay in lodging the FIR on 12.09.2025 whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 26.08.2025. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and mechanically rejected the bail. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, 3 physical or psychological danger, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the applicant may be enlarged 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 alongwith another juvenile offender and two other adult accused committed the crime. He submits that the knife was recovered from the juvenile applicant and Social Investigation Report shows that the applicant has the background of many criminal antecedents and the said report is totally against the release of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material 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 psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 7. Reading of the Social Investigation Report reflects that the juvenile shows no signs of improvement and he is consistently advised to remain disciplined. 8. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application filed u/s 12 of the on 19.12.2025. The Appellate Court held that the applicant is aged about 17 years old and considering his past criminal record and involvement in other crimes rejected the bail application. 4 9. Having regard to the comments/suggestions made by the Special Investigation Report which is totally against the release of the applicant and further looking to the past criminal record which goes to show that he was earlier booked in 8 criminal cases, 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 is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao