1 CGHC010281962026 2026:CGHC:39220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 963 of 2026 1 - A B C Nil. 2 - X Y Z Nil … Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station G R P Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the applicants : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Rohitashwa Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 14.07.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 239/2016 whereby the learned additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 06.06.2026 passed in Criminal Case No. 290/2026 dismissing the bail application of the present applicant by the Juvenile Justice Board in connection with Crime No.56 of 2026 registered at P.S. GRP, Raipur. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on receipt of secret information ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.08 10:05:28 +0530 2 on 22.4.2026, the Sub-Inspector of GRP, Raipur apprehended the present two juvenile applicants and on enquiry, recovered 2 Kgs and 700 grams of ganja from juvenile “A” and 2 Kgs and 400 grams from juvenile “B” respectively, thereby offence has been committed. On the date of occurrence, the present applicants were juveniles. They were sent to juvenile home on 23.04.2026. They filed an application u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicants are in Jail since 23.04.2026 and they have completed more than 3 months in custody. The Social Investigation Report does not show any previous criminal history or antecedents of the applicants and the said report is not against the release of the juvenile applicants. He further submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicants deserve to be released on bail, therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act does not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that Section 12 of the Act, 2015 mandatorily provides that a juvenile must be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal, expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. The the nature of the contraband recovered cannot be the sole criteria to deny bail to the juveniles, as the primary objective of the Act is reformation and rehabilitation. 3 7. In the present case, a perusal of the record and the Social Investigation Report do not indicate any previous criminal history or antecedents of the applicants. There is no material on record to substantiate that their release would expose them to moral or psychological danger or bring them into contact with hardened criminals. 8. The applicants have been in the observation home since 23.04.2026 and have already spent more than three months in custody. Considering their age on the date of the incident, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the statutory mandate of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below ought not to have rejected the bail application by primarily focusing on the nature of the offence and the contraband recovered from the juveniles rather than the welfare and reformative aspects of the juveniles. 9. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, and the order dated 06.06.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur, are hereby set aside. 10. It is directed that the juvenile applicants "ABC" and "XYZ" be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- each with one surety each in the like sum by their respective parents/natural guardians to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur, subject to the condition that the parents/guardians shall ensure that the juveniles do not come into contact with any undesirable elements and are kept under proper supervision. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao