1 2026:CGHC:26154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 669 of 2026 A Juvenile Conflict With Law Nill ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Arjunda, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/06/ 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”) has been preferred against the SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.06.25 17:38:11 +0530 2 impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Balod, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2026, upholding the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District – Balod (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 212/2024 registered at Police Station Arjunda, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 126(2) of BNS. 2. In this case there are total three accused persons. As per the prosecution’s case, it is alleged that on 22.11.2024, the present applicant along with two other major accused intentionally caused the death of deceased Dukhuram by assaulting him with their hands and strangulating him with a belt. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 24.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The applicant is aged about 17 years and he is in the observation home since 24.11.2024. There is no direct evidence available on record against him. Nothing has been seized from the applicant except his own clothes. However, one bracelet (Kada) has been seized from the place of 3 incident on the memorandum of the applicant. The social status report is not against the applicant. She further submits that 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. The learned Court below 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 seizure of clothes has been made from the applicant and one bracelet (Kada) has been seized from the place of incident on the memorandum of the applicant. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant 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 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. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by 4 the concerned Probation Officer states the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The Courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the 5 trial Court. 8. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham