1 CGHC010192932026 2026:CGHC:39223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 693 of 2026 • ABC ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anurima Agashe, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. This revision is filed by the juvenile under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No.89/2026 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg, District Durg (C.G.) has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Durg in Crime No.556/2025 registered at P.S. Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg (CG) for the offence CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.08 11:14:14 +0530 2 punishable u/s 332(b) and 65(2) of BNS and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, whereby the bail application of the present applicant has been rejected. 2. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that on 17.11.2025, the complainant returned to his home from work at about 11:00 a.m. and found no one in the house. He opened the door and saw that the juvenile was lying naked under the bed along with his daughter in the room. He immediately called his daughter out, dressed the juvenile, and took him out of the house. Thereafter, the complainant's wife returned home and, upon being asked about the incident, the victim disclosed that the juvenile had touched her chest and forcibly established physical relations with her. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Pulgaon. On the basis of the said report, the police registered FIR bearing Crime No. 556/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 332(B) and 65(2) of the BNS and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act against the juvenile. The juvenile was apprehended and has been kept in the Child Protection Home since 18.11.2025. Since the present applicant was juvenile, he filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits there was an old dispute and previous enmity between the family members of the victim and the applicant, as they are neighbours, and therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to such family dispute and enmity. Learned counsel further submits that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and that the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence. He submits that the learned Courts below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the Social Investigation Report is favourable to the applicant and that there is no material to establish that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal, expose him to 3 moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and looking to the long detention of the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that juvenile is accused of committing rape with a minor girl aged about 7 and 1/2 years. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant. Therefore, the orders passed by the two Courts being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the last date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the victim, though notice has been served. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short “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. 8. The Sessions Court, Durg has rejected the bail of the applicant on the ground that the victim was only 7½ years old at the time of the alleged offence, and the medical report indicates signs of aggravated sexual assault. The statement recorded before the Juvenile Justice Board also supports the allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the juvenile. Although bail is a right of the juvenile, the Court must also consider the interests of the victim and society at large. As per the social investigation report, the juvenile used to watch pornography on 4 a mobile phone and allegedly committed the offence under its influence against a girl below eight years of age, who was his neighbour. Considering the tender age of the victim, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the circumstances reflected in the social investigation report, the release of the juvenile at this stage may adversely affect the victim and would defeat the end of justice. 9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the tender age of the victim, the material available on record, and the circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 10. However, looking to the long detention of the juvenile, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Chandrakant