1 2026:CGHC:26586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 615 of 2026 Xyz Through Its Legal Guardian Pradeep Ratre, Father Of Xyz. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (Cg) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by the applicant (juvenile in conflict with law) through his natural guardian, assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Juvenile Case No. 463/2025, whereby the second application preferred by the applicant under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Protection of Children) Act, 2015 seeking grant of bail has been rejected. 2. The applicant had earlier preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, which came to be rejected vide order dated 09.09.2025 in Juvenile Case No. 403/2025. Against the said order, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 239/2025 before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC and Children’s Court, Bilaspur, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2025. Thereafter, on account of subsequent circumstances, the applicant preferred a second application under Section 12 of the Act before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 03.12.2025. Hence, the present Criminal Revision. 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, it is alleged that on 13.07.2025, while the complainant had gone to her workplace, her neighbours informed her that a quarrel had broken out at her house between her son and certain other boys. Upon receiving the information, the complainant immediately rushed to her house and found that her son, who had earlier assaulted one of the accused, namely Sumeet Bandhe, was again engaged in a quarrel with him and the other co-accused persons. It is further alleged that when the complainant called the police for assistance, Sumeet Bandhe and the other accused persons intentionally set the complainant’s house 3 on fire, causing damage to her property to the tune of approximately Rs.3,50,000/-. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board in connection with the aforesaid offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR, which has been lodged against the major accused persons, namely Sameer Bhaskar, Deepak Manhar and Sanjay Bandhe. The implication of the applicant is solely based on the memorandum statement of co- accused Sanjay Bandhe, who has already been enlarged on bail, and no specific overt act or role has been attributed to the applicant either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the applicant, being a juvenile, has been lodged in the Juvenile Observation Home since 14.08.2025 and his further detention is neither necessary for the purpose of investigation nor for custodial interrogation. It is also contended that another juvenile co-accused has already been granted bail by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, and therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on the ground of parity. He further submits that continued detention of the applicant would adversely affect his mental, physical and psychological development and would defeat the very object and spirit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which is reformative and rehabilitative in nature. He also submits that the charge-sheet in the 4 present case has also been filed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence and the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie establishes his complicity in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that though the applicant is a juvenile, he has as many as 08 previous criminal antecedents, which indicate his continuous involvement in criminal activities and his conduct is not conducive to his reformation. It is also submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court have rightly appreciated the gravity and seriousness of the allegations while rejecting the bail application of the applicant. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the material available on record, it is prayed that the present Criminal Revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though the applicant has 08 previous criminal antecedents, but all those cases have already been disposed of. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the applicant is a juvenile in conflict with law, the submission that he is 5 not named in the FIR and has been implicated subsequently during the course of investigation, the period of detention undergone by him since 14.08.2025, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and further considering that one of the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Bandhe, has already been enlarged on bail and another juvenile co-accused has also been granted bail by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the applicant deserves to be considered under the beneficial provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Though the applicant has 08 previous criminal antecedents, it has been submitted that all those cases have already been disposed of. Moreover, no material has been brought on record to prima facie show that, if released on bail, the applicant is likely to come into association with any known criminal, or that his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that it would defeat the ends of justice, which are the statutory exceptions contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the present Criminal Revision. 9. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Juvenile Case No. 463/2025, whereby the second application preferred by the applicant under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was rejected, is hereby set aside. 6 It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. The applicant shall be handed over to the custody of his natural guardian, who shall ensure his proper care and supervision and shall also ensure his appearance before the Juvenile Justice Board on each and every date fixed during the pendency of the proceedings. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan