1 2026:CGHC:6614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 65 of 2026 Xyz Nill ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ranchirai, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the judgment dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), POCSO Act Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Case No. 380/2025, passed by the Court of learned Juvenile Justice 2 Board, in Crime No.. 114/2025. in which the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act as well as the appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, ON 13.09.2025, the complainant appeared at Police Station Ranijai and lodged a report stating that between 11:00 PM on 09.09.2025 and 03:00 AM on 10.09.2025, the adult accused Indrajeet Mahilal annd Keshav Joshi, along with the child in conflict with law (Child X), forcibly took the complainant and two other persons to the embankment of a pond located outside their village. Without any provocation, the accused persons abused the complainant and the tow others using obscene and vulgar language involving references to mother and sister. Thereafter, the complainant and the two others were stripped of their clothes and undergarments, and were beaten with wooden sticks and broom handles on their hips, thighs, near the back of the knees and waist. Further accused Keshav and Indrajeet forcibly held the private parts (genitals) of the complainant and the two other victims and committed acts of molestation. When the victims attempted to escape, they were not allowed to do so. Nearby there was a cowshed, where a saree used for covering the plants was kept; Indrajeet brought pieces of that saree and tied the hands of all three victims. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 114/2025 was registered at Police Station- Ranijai. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the the courts 3 below have failed to analyze the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case. The FIR is delayed by 4 days without any plausible explanation. The name of the present applicant does not find place in FIR. There is no overt act against the applicant in FIR, hence no offence is made out. The gravity of alleged offence cannot be a ground to delay bail to a juvenile in conflict of law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a a bailable or non- bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, 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: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for 4 denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home1[or a place of safety, as the case may be] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.” 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the rejection of bail was primarily based on the social investigation report, which refers to the alleged bad company, indiscipline, and apprehension that release on bail may expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger or may lead to association with known criminals. 8. Mere apprehension or general observations in the social investigation report, without specific and convincing material, cannot be a valid ground to deny bail to a juvenile. The object of the Juvenile Justice Act is reformative and rehabilitative, and 5 denial of bail is an exception which must be supported by strong reasons. 9. In the present case, no concrete material has been brought on record to show that the release of the child on bail would defeat the ends of justice or would necessarily expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the judgment dated 28.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge FTSC (POCSO) Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Case No. 380 /2025 is set aside. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a surety of Rs.10,000/- which is to be of his guardian to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance as and when directed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima