1 2026:CGHC:7174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 141 of 2026 1 - ABC Nil ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) read with Section 438(1) and Section 442 of BNSS, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) and Children Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.317/2025, upholding the order dated 06.12.2025 HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.10 10:15:58 +0530 2 passed by learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 363/2025 registered at Police Station Pachpedi Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115, 109, 3(5) of BNS. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 27.11.2025, the complainant lodged a report to the effect that on 26.11.2025 at about 8:00 pm, on the matter of liquor, the co-accused persons namely, Kamal Kumar Mahilange, Rakesh Kumar Mahilange, jayesh Kumar Mahilange and the present applicant had abused the complainant and assaulted the complainant by means of wooden stick, due to which the complainant ran away from the place and went to Rahas Chowk where the friend of the complainant namely Rajendra mahilange and Phool Chand Mahilange were sitting. Subsequently, they both came to rescue the complainant, due to which all the accused, including the present applicant, started abusing them, and the present applicant stabbed Rajendra Mahilange in the stomach with a knife and also assaulted Phool Chand Mahilange on his chest with the intention to kill them. Due to the assault, Rajendra and Phoochand fell on the ground. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3 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 27.11.2025. 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. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of Section 12 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 there is a seizure of a knife and the applicant has played an active role in the dispute and caused the stab injuries with a knife on the vital part like stomach and chest, of the injured. The family of the applicant is involved in the business of illicit liquor, and there is a case of illicit liquor has already been registered against the main accused, Kamal Kumar Mahilange, father of the applicant. Therefore, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. 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 4 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. 6. 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. 7. By the Additional Sessions Court (FTC), Bilaspur, the appeal of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicant/juvenile, along with three major co- accused, who are the father and elder brother of the applicant, actively and systematically attempted to commit murder. The social investigation report states that this is the first time the juvenile has been detained in an observation home. However, the juvenile is accused of stabbing the victim with a knife, while the other co-accused are alleged to have assaulted the victim with their hands, fists and knives. Furthermore, it is apparent from the case diary that the family of the juvenile has a history of criminal activity. The main accused in the case, Kamal Kumar Mahilange, has a criminal record for illegal liquor sales and operates this business with his five sons, 5 including the juvenile. The circumstances of the case also suggest that the accused are using the juvenile under their influence and direction to commit crimes. Therefore, his detention in the observation home is likely to have a positive impact on his behaviour and attitude, and he will also receive a disciplined environment. If he is granted bail, he may come into contact with known criminals, which could have an adverse effect on his mind and morale, and there is also a possibility that the ends of justice may be defeated. 8. 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. 9. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 141/2026 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu