1 2026:CGHC:11001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 219 of 2026 1 - PKS Nill ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 03/03/2026 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.01.2026 passed by learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO) Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.178/2025, upholding the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 483/2025 registered at Police Out Post – Chikhali, P.S. Kotwali, HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.03.03 17:58:59 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 109(1), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 06.09.2025, the applicant (juvenile) along with another juvenile co-accused and two major co-accused, with a common intention of murder, committed assault on Sachin (now deceased), husband of the complainant. It is further alleged that the present applicant committed the said assault by means of a knife, due to which Sachin sustained grievous injuries and died. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in observation home since 07.09.2025. The social investigation report is in the favour of the applicant. There is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is the main accused who sustained 17 stab injuries on the deceased by means of a knife, on account of old enmity, due to which the 3 deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. The said knife has been seized from the present applicant. There are two eyewitnesses, namely Roshan and Khemchand, in this case, who have not been examined. Therefore, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. 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. 6. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. By the Additional Sessions Court (FTC), Rajnandgaon, the appeal of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the juvenile/applicant has not only committed a heinous crime but has also committed the crime by abandoning studies while living under the guardianship of his parents, which shows that the juvenile is beyond the control of his parents/guardians. If 4 he is granted bail, there is a possibility of his getting involved in crime again, and his friends or peers being habitual criminals and being in more contact with them, there is a possibility of dangerous changes in his moral and psychological thinking, due to which the objective of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act would be defeated. 8. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the overall situation of the crime, it is found that if the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him in moral and psychological danger and the object of justice would be defeated. 9. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 219/2026 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu