1 2026:CGHC:26276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 774 of 2026 XYZ Aged About 17 Years Nil ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur, District – Surguja, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sashibhushan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Saumay Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging the order dated 04.06.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2026 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, FTC (POCSO Act), Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, rejecting the application for bail filed by the applicant/child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 2. Case of the prosecution is that Crime No. 649/2025 was registered on 16.11.2025 at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, for offences PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.06.30 13:17:06 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 111, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the course of investigation, the present applicant, a child in conflict with law aged about 17 years, was apprehended on 08.05.2026 and produced before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, which directed that he be kept in an Observation Home/Child Care Institution. Thereafter, an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, seeking bail on behalf of the applicant, was filed, however, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 22.05.2026, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60/2026 under Section 101 of the Act before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, FTC (POCSO), Ambikapur. The said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.06.2026. Hence, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and the continued detention of the petitioner, the present Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred before this Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, while the investigation against the other accused persons is still in progress. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3 6. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. No material has been brought on record at this stage to indicate the direct involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record, and the settled principles governing the grant of bail to a child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the present criminal revision. 7. Consequently, criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Session Judge, FTC (POCSO Act), Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2026 are set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a surety of Rs. 50,000/-along with a bond of same amount which are to be of his natural guardian/father/mother, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for this appearance as when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural guardian/father/mother. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti