1 2026:CGHC:23750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 589 of 2026 1. R.Y. @ B (In Conflict with Law) 2. J.N. @ D (In Conflict with Law) Description of Applicants and their Legal Guardian is in Closed Envelop ...Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Somani, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ...Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred by the applicants against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. (POCSO)/Juvenile Court, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 127/2025, affirming the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G., whereby the bail application of the applicants were AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.06.15 17:10:02 +0530 2 rejected in connection with Crime No.142/2025 registered at Police Station Somani, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the night of 30.06.2025, deceased- Prashant Tiwari had gone to a roadside motel with his friends to celebrate a birthday. In the early hours of 01.07.2025, the applicant, along with his associates, also reached there. It is alleged that after an altercation between the victim and one of the accused persons, the victim was assaulted with a knife, causing grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital, where he later succumbed to his injuries. On a report being lodged in this regard, the aforesaid offences were registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that they have no criminal antecedents and have been in the Observation Home since 02.07.2025. It is also submitted that the present applicants have been implicated in the crime in question solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused. It is further submitted that the Social Investigation Report is in favour of the applicants and there is no likelihood that their release would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to any moral, physical, or psychological danger. He further submits that both the learned Courts have rejected the bail applications without proper consideration of the material available on record. Therefore, considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicants were involved in the alleged crime. He further submits that, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, if the applicants are released on bail, there is a likelihood that they may indulge in similar criminal activities. It is also submitted that under Section 12 of the Act, 2015, bail can be denied where release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available 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. From the perusal of the case diary, the Social Investigation Report of the applicants, and the material available on record, it prima facie appears that on the date of the incident, the juveniles in conflict with law had a quarrel with the deceased and, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted him with a knife, causing serious injuries, as a result of which he died during the course of treatment. 4 8. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the offence, the manner in which the incident occurred, and the material available on record, this Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that if the juvenile applicants are released on bail, they are likely to come into association with known criminals and may be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger. Further, their release at this stage would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the juvenile applicants. 9. Consequently, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh