1 CGHC010214032026 026:CGHC:27703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.712 of 2026 Juvenile In Conflict With Law Nill ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant :Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Non-Applicant/State :Smt Supriya Upasane, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act, 2000) has been preferred against the impugned order 06.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.118/2026 upholding the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur whereby the application of the SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.07 10:48:26 +0530 2 Applicant for grant of bail in Crime No.614/2025 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, the NDPS Act) was rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of secret information received from an informant, the Police Station Civil Lines reached the spot and apprehended the Juvenile in conflict with law. Upon his personal search and search of the dickey of vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-QQ-8496, 07 strips containing 70 tablets of Nitrosun-10 (Nitrazepam), a psychotropic substance total 51.27 gms were seized from his possession. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Juvenile Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged substance was much below the notified commercial quantity. He further submits that neither the Juvenile Applicant nor any of his family members has any criminal antecedents and the Social Investigation Report is also in favour of the Juvenile Applicant indicating that there is no likelihood of his coming into association with any known criminal or indulging in criminal activities if released on bail. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Applicant is a student of Class X and his continued detention is likely to adversely affect his studies and future prospects. He lastly submits that the Juvenile Applicant has 3 been in the remand home since 23.11.2025 and there is no immediate likelihood of conclusion of the trial, therefore, considering the aforesaid circumstances, he may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. She, however, fairly submits that as per the Social Investigation Report, the Juvenile Applicant has no criminal antecedents and except for the present case involving the alleged seizure of 51.27 grams of the psychotropic substance, no other criminal case has been registered against him. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. The Social Investigation Report would reflect that the juvenile Applicant has no bad habits and no criminal antecedents are 4 reported against him. In sum and substance, the said report is not against the release of the Juvenile. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also looking to the comments made in Social Investigation Report which is not against the release of the Juvenile Applicant and the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, I am of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that release would expose the juveniles to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or bring them into association with "known or unknown criminals, therefore, it is a fit case to release the Applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 is set aside. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is allowed. The Juvenile Applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.15,000/- by the guardian/parents of the Applicant to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board as and when directed. 10. Accordingly, the instant Revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priya