1 2026:CGHC:26402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 562 of 2026 ABC Conflicted With Law Through Natural Guardian Mother X Y Z ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 29/06/ 2026 1. This is the second 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 impugned order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.06.30 11:03:23 +0530 2 Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2026, upholding the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 623/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), of BNS, 25 & 27 of Arms Act and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act. 2. The first revision petition was dismissed on merits vide order of this Court dated 03.07.2025 passed in CRR No. 573/2025. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that complainant Virendra Singh filed a written complaint alleging therein that on 04.09.2024 between 9.00 to 9.20am, Vishal Sahu, Gajendra Sahu and few children were talking to each other at Bacherpara Chowk, when they saw that Rahul Suryawanshi and co-accused person were arguing with each other, after that co-accused attacked Rahul Suryawanshi (since deceased) with the knife, thereafter, victim – Rahul Suryawanshi was taken to the CIMS Hospital, where he was declared dead during the course of treatment. On report being made in this regard, aforesaid offence has been registered against the present applicant 3 alonwith co-accused person. 4. 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. Name of the applicant has not been mentioned in morgue. Nothing has been seized from the applicant except one motorcycle. The social status report is not against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in observation home since 04.02.2025 and 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there are three eye-witnesses in this case namely Virendra, Gajendra and Vishal out of which Virendra has been examined and supported the case of prosecution. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. Today, sister of deceased has appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing from concerned D.L.S.A.. She submits that bail should not be granted to the 4 applicant/juvenile and bail application filed by the applicant must be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 rejected. 9. The bail application of the applicant was 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. The said finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board has duly been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 10. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, I note that there is no change in circumstances in the second bail application as compared to the first bail application, the 5 prosecution relies on eyewitnesses and the recovery of Bike from the applicant, who is alleged to have played a significant role in the incident. Given the involvement of other co-accused, who is major, granting bail to the juvenile would result in lack of proper care and protection, further only 1 witness has been examined out of 24, I conclude that granting bail to the applicant would likely expose him to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the reasoned findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court. 11. Consequently, this criminal revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Considering the detention period of the applicant, the concerned Juvenile Justice Board is directed to expedite the inquiry and to ensure that the inquiry is concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham