1 CGHC010274932026 2026:CGHC:39227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 904 of 2026 • XYZ --- Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Non-applicant with CRR No. 944 of 2026 • Juvenile (In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And His Legal Guardian Is Mentioned In Closed Envelope). ---Applicant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (CG) --- Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate & Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same crime number, same offence and the same impugned order(s), and CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.09 13:07:50 +0530 2 involve common questions of fact and law, therefore, both the revision petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Juvenile) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, and Juvenile Court, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, C.G. in Criminal Appeal Case No. 22/2026, upholding the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant(s) in connection with Crime No. 33/2026 registered at Police Station Magarlod, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 103(1), 117(2), 61(2)(A) of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.02.2026, the complainant, Tetkuram Nishad, lodged a complaint at Police Station Magarlod stating that on 21.02.2026, he had gone with his family members and acquaintances from village Malgaon to village Bhothidih to attend the Chauthia ceremony of his daughter. At about 7:30 p.m., during the Chauthia Parghani, a scuffle took place between the complainant's side and Toran Chakradhari, Abhishek Chakradhari, Tamraj Kanwar, Hinesh Yadav, Gulab Diwan and certain juvenile in conflict with law who had come there to play musical instruments. The dispute was pacified after intervention and advice, thereafter, at about 8:30 p.m., after conclusion of the Chauthia programme, when the complainant was preparing to return to village Malgaon, the aforesaid accused persons and the juvenile in conflict with law assembled near the market square of village Bhothidih. It is alleged that, on account of the earlier scuffle, they jointly abused and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and assaulted him with fists and a knife. During the incident, 3 accused Toshan Chakradhari allegedly inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the complainant's son, Chandan Nishad, while Dhruv sustained a knife injury on the right side of his waist near the abdomen. When Mohit Yadav, Kishan Yadav and Neeraj Nishad intervened, they were also allegedly assaulted and injured by Toshan Chakradhari and the other accused persons. The injured persons were thereafter taken to Government Hospital, Magarlod for treatment. During treatment, Chandan Nishad succumbed to his injuries, while the other injured persons sustained serious injuries. On the basis of the oral report, investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation, from the statements of witnesses and other material collected, the involvement of the juvenile in conflict with law in the commission of the alleged offence was also found. Accordingly, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the said juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below rejecting the bail applications of the applicants are illegal, erroneous, perverse and contrary to the facts, circumstances and material available on record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. It is submitted that both the applicants are juveniles and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Till date charges have not been framed against the applicants. There is no specific allegation against either of the applicants that they inflicted any injury upon the deceased Chandan Nishad or the injured persons. It is further submitted that the allegation of the fatal knife blow upon the deceased has been specifically attributed to co-accused Toshan Chakradhari. The statement of the injured eyewitness Dhruv also attributes the fatal assault to Toshan Chakradhari. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have been in the Observation Home since 22.02.2026 and have no criminal antecedents. The social status report in respect of the applicants is favourable and there is no 4 material to indicate that their release would expose them or society to any danger or defeat the ends of justice. The father of the respective applicants is ready and willing to take their custody and undertake their proper care, supervision and rehabilitation. 5. It is further submitted that the prosecution has cited 38 witnesses, but none of the prosecution witnesses has yet been examined. Therefore, the proceedings are likely to take considerable time for conclusion. There is no likelihood of the applicants absconding, influencing the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the prosecution material. The applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and are ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court; thus, it is prayed that both the applicants may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail applications and submits that the applicants are alleged to have participated in the incident which resulted in the death of Chandan Nishad and serious injuries to other persons. It is submitted that both the applicants are involved in the alleged offence with common intention. The allegations are grave in nature and the matter is still at the stage of inquiry/trial. It is further submitted that the statements of the witnesses collected during investigation prima facie disclose the involvement of the applicants in the incident. The fact that the applicants are juveniles or that the specific fatal blow has been attributed to co-accused Toshan Chakradhari does not, at this stage, completely absolve them of their alleged participation in the occurrence. Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution has cited several witnesses who are yet to be examined and, therefore, there is a possibility of the applicants influencing the witnesses or otherwise hampering the proceedings if released. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation, no ground for grant of 5 bail is made out. Hence, the bail applications are liable to be rejected. 7. 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. 8. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer. A bare perusal of it would show that the conduct of the applicants are not only good, but they are living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicants on bail would bring them in association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The trail Court as well as appellate Court have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 9. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board hereby are set aside, and the Revisions are allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000-25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicants as and when directed, the applicants shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicants as well as by the surety, 6 which shall be duly verified by the trial Court. 10. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicants shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if they are found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicants shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Chandrakant