1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 302 of 2026 X Y Z Nill ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai,distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13/03/ 2026 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur (C.G.) in Cr.A No. 580/2025 upholding the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 419/2025 whereby the bail application of the applicant relating to Crime No 435/2025 registered at Police Station Kamtarai District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 2 Sections 294, 351(2),118(1), 115(2), 331(6), 109(2), 118(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Chandan Manjhi lodged a report to the concerned police station Khamtarai alleging that on 13.05.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., when his brother Kundan Manjhi and his friends were sitting near Bandhava Pond, the juvenile- applicant alongwith other adult accused Bhuvaneshwar Nishad alias Bhanu and Sahil came there and on account of old enmity, they started abusing complainant’s brother Kundan in filthy language citing his mother and sister and further chased him with a sharp object. Victim Kundan Manjhi ran-away and entered into the house of one Deepak Verma. Then all the three accused forcibly entered Deepak Verma’s house and assaulted Kundan with sharp edged object, due to which, the victim suffered injuries on his back, arms, ribs and other parts of his body. The accused further threatened to kill him. Deepak Verma and others admitted the injured in Medical College Hospital, Raipur. On such report, the crime was registered and the applicant juvenile was taken into custody on 15.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-juvenile has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood that their release would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger. However, both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail without considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail. He submits that Kundan is an habitual offender and used to come and assault the accused. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer 3 for grant of bail. He submits that there are 3 eye-witnesses to the incident and knife was seized from the accused persons. He prays that looking to the gravity of the crime and the role played by juvenile offender, he should 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. The Social Investigation Report reflects that at present the juvenile belongs to a middle class family; he does not currently go to school; He requires regular education and counseling. The child has participated in the crime due to his association with adults and adverse circumstance. 7. The bail application of the applicants was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case he is released on bail, he may again commit the offence and there is likelihood that he may come into contact with known and unknown criminals. 8. The Appellate Court held that the release of the juvenile would expose him to to moral, physical or psychological danger, ultimately defeating the ends of justice and accordingly rejected the appeal. 9. It appears from the material placed on record that the juvenile applicant played an active role by assisting the main adult accused Bhuvaneshwar Nishad alias Bhanu and Sahil in the alleged assault. 4 He has already come in contact with the adult accused. 10. The Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the need for rehabilitation of juveniles with the need for justice, but in cases of violence, the "ends of justice" provision in the law can be invoked to deny the bail as their release would lead to public outcry and a feeling that justice has not been served. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the over-all facts and circumstances of the case and further looking to the role played by the juvenile applicant, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revisions. Consequently, this Revision are dismissed. 12. However, looking to the long detention of the juvenile, the Juvenile Justice Board is directed to ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao