1 2026:CGHC:23751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 595 of 2026 • XYZ ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (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 applicant against the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. & Juvenile Court, Dhamtari, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.14/2026, affirming the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, C.G., whereby the bail application of the applicant was rejected in connection with Crime No.321/2025 registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.06.15 17:10:01 +0530 2 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNS’) & Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant along with other co-accused persons, abused and beat the deceased, Rohit Kumar Nag, and threatened him. It is alleged that co-accused- Chandrashekhar Sahu assaulted him with an iron pipe, while another accused- Manish Rokda, stabbed him multiple times in the stomach and thigh, causing his death. It is further alleged that when the family members of the deceased tried to intervene, the accused persons threatened them by pointing a gun. On the basis of the report lodged, the aforesaid offences were registered against the applicant and the other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in the Observation Home since 09.12.2025. It is also submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the crime in question solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused person. It is further submitted that the Social Investigation Report is in favour of the applicant and that there is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him 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 applicant 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 applicant was involved in the alleged offence along with the co-accused persons. He further submits that, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, there is a likelihood that if released on bail, the applicant 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 applicant is 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 applicant, and the material available on record, it prima facie appears that on the date of the incident, the juveniles in conflict with law, along with other co-accused persons, had a quarrel with the deceased, abused him in filthy language, and, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted him with an iron pipe, causing serious 4 injuries to his body, as a result of which, he died. It further appears that when the family members of the deceased tried to intervene, the accused persons threatened to kill them by pointing an air gun at them. 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 applicant is released on bail, he is likely to come into association with known criminals and may be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger. Further, his 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 applicant. 9. Consequently, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh