1 CGHC010144562026 2026:CGHC:39229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 541 of 2026 XYZ Nil ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station- Jhagrakhad, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Dy.G.A For the objector/complainant : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate 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 10.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2026 whereby the First additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 10.02.2026 dismissing the bail application of the present applicant by the Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur in connection with Crime No 10 of 2026 registered at P.S. Jhagarkhand for the offence punishable under Section 137, 65(1), 87 of BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.01.2026, the mother of ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.08 14:36:50 +0530 2 minor victim lodged a report that her daughter was missing since 10.01.2026. During investigation, the victim was traced and her statement was recorded wherein she alleged that the present applicant had taken her away on the pretext of marriage and had established physical relations with her against her will. The present applicant was minor. He was sent to juvenile home on 18.01.2026. He filed an application u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which has also been rejected. 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 juvenile applicant is in Jail since 18.1.2026; he has spent in jail more than 7 months and the trial has not yet commenced. 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 applicant deserves 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. Non-objection to bail has been filed from victim’s side through the counsel engaged by them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the objector does not oppose the prayer for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is a well-settled principle 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 offence cannot be the sole criteria to deny bail to the 3 juvenile, as the primary objective of the Act is reformation and rehabilitation. 8. In the present case, both the victim and juvenile are minors. A perusal of the record and the Social Investigation Report shows that it is not against the release of the applicant. Even the victim’s side has filed non-objection to grant bail. There is no material on record to substantiate that his release would expose him to moral or psychological danger or bring him into contact with known criminals or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 9. The applicant has been in the observation home since 18.01.2026 and has already spent more than 7 months in custody. Considering his age on the date of the incident 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 as his release would not defeat the ends of justice. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Manendragarh, District Koriya and the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, are hereby set aside. 11. It is directed that the juvenile applicant "XYZ" be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like sum by the parents/natural guardian to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao