1 CGHC010122262026 2026:CGHC:28288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 480 of 2026 Xyz Nil ... Applicant(s) versus Union Of India Through - The Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Raipur ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Non-applicant/UOI : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachwaha, DSGI Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2026 1. This criminal revision is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61//2026 by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), Children Court Bilaspur (C.G), whereby the appeal preferred by the present applicant has been dismissed. 2. As per the prosecution story, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.), Raipur received specific information regarding the alleged illegal trafficking of cannabis in a Maruti Suzuki Dzire car bearing Registration No. CG-10 NC-6633, which was allegedly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 travelling from Odisha through Raigarh, Sakti and Champa towards Jabalpur (M.P.). It was informed that the said vehicle was likely to pass through the Sakti–Champa Road on 18.08.2025 between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Acting upon the said information, the authorities attempted to intercept the aforesaid Maruti Suzuki Dzire bearing Registration No. CG-10 NC-6633 at about 8:20 A.M. near Baradwar Park, Jetha, Kesla Toll Plaza. However, the three persons travelling in the said vehicle allegedly did not stop the vehicle and instead attempted to flee from the spot. Thereafter, the alleged vehicle was intercepted by the authorities and upon search of the vehicle, a total of 43 packets containing cannabis, weighing 39.833 kilograms, were allegedly recovered from the door panels of all four doors, the floor beneath the rear seat, and the backrest of the rear seat. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, an offence was registered against the applicant in conflict with law along with the other co-accused as Crime No. 34/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant was arrested on 19.08.2025. During further investigation, it transpired that applicant was a juvenile on the date of the incident. Upon verification of his age-related documents, the said fact was duly confirmed. Consequently, his case was separated from that of the adult co-accused and after his apprehension, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, from where he was sent to jail. 3. The applicant preferred an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, 3 seeking his release on bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), however, the said application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 28.08.2025. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2025, the applicant/juvenile filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.03.2026. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of 39.833 kilograms of cannabis (ganja) was not effected from the exclusive possession of the present applicant/child in conflict with law, as the contraband was allegedly recovered from different concealed cavities of the vehicle in which all the occupants were travelling. It is further submitted that the Social Investigation Report of the applicant is wholly positive and reflects that the applicant has good behaviour with his family members, neighbours and friends and that the present case is his first alleged involvement in any criminal offence. It is contended that there is no adverse material in the Social Investigation Report to attract any of the exceptions contemplated under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged against him. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts below have rejected the applicant's prayer for bail merely on 4 presumptions and surmises, particularly on the ground that the applicant had shown less interest in his studies, which by itself cannot be a valid ground for denial of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is also submitted that the co-accused, Akash Kumar Yadav, whose bail application was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8190/2025 vide order dated 14.10.2025, preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 2259/2026 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 29.04.2026, has been pleased to grant him bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity as well as in view of the beneficial provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent/Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act involving commercial quantity of contraband, i.e., 39.833 kilograms of cannabis (ganja), which was recovered from the vehicle in which the applicant was travelling along with the co-accused persons. It is submitted that there are sufficient materials collected during the course of investigation indicating the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. He further contends that having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the contraband was allegedly concealed in different cavities of the vehicle and the larger impact of such offences on society, the applicant does not deserve the 5 discretionary relief of bail. It is further submitted that both the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have, after due appreciation of the material available on record, rightly rejected the applicant's prayer for bail and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court and also the fact that the bail application of the other co- accused persons have already been rejected by this Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the present criminal revision be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Upon perusal of the case diary and the material available on record, it appears that 39.833 kilograms of cannabis (ganja) was allegedly recovered from the concealed cavities of the Maruti Suzuki Dzire car, in which the applicant along with the co-accused persons was travelling and the alleged contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the present applicant. Further, the applicant is a child in conflict with law and the Social Investigation Report is positive and there is no material on record to attract any of the exceptions contemplated under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is also not in dispute that the co-accused, Akash Kumar Yadav, whose bail application was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8190/2025 vide order dated 14.10.2025, has subsequently been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 2259/2026 vide order dated 29.04.2026. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 6 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the principle of parity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 8. Consequently, the present criminal revision stands allowed. The impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur in Crime No. 34/2025, whereby the bail application of the applicant was rejected and the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Children Court Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur, affirming the said order, are hereby 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 his appearance as when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural guardian/father/mother. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal