1 CGHC010167442026 2026:CGHC:28257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 637 of 2026 A B C ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Tilda Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, P.L. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL Order on Board 08/07/2026 Heard. 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 10.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Criminal appeal 123/2026 upholding the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur in Criminal Case No.76/2026, whereby the application of the applicant for grant of bail in Crime No.286/2025 registered at P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21 (B) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.08 17:06:08 +0530 2 Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) was rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, on a secret information through the informant, the Police conducted a search and allegedly recovered brown sugar weighing 3.400 grams from the possession of the juvenile applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and prosecution has failed to prove the case against her. He further submits that she has no criminal antecedents and she is in observation home from 23.12.2025. He further submits that the applicant- juvenile is a school going girl and she is willing to continue her study. He further submits that there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, considering the above aspects, the juvenile applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He, however, submits that as per the Social Status report, the juvenile applicant has no criminal antecedents and 3.400 grams of contraband brown sugar was seized from the possession of the juvenile applicant which is intermediate quantity and except this, she has no other criminal antecedents. 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. 3 7. The Social Investigation Report would reflect that the juvenile applicant has no bad habits; no criminal antecedents are reported against the applicant. In sum and substance, the said report does not appear to be 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, 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 her 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 10.04.2026 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 her furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/-, by the mother/guardian of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for her appearance before the Board, as and when directed. 10. The revision is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash