1 CGHC010346122026 2026:CGHC:41729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1171 of 2026 1 - Xyz Nil ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar Tandon, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/09 / 2026 1. The present 03rd Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.338/2026 upholding the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.274/2024 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 397, 34 of IPC was rejected. 2. The first Criminal Revision filed by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court in CRR No.812/2025 vide order dated 21.07.2025, whereas the second Criminal Revision was dismissed as 2 withdrawn by this Court in CRR No. 1121/2025 vide order dated 16.09.2025. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.06.2024, the applicant along with co-accused took away the mobile phone, ATM card, bank passbook, pan card etc. from the pocket of deceased Mangal Muria and assaulted him with hands, fists, kicks and banged his head on the ground as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant and co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the applicant has been in observation home since 30.06.2024 and that the trial has not yet commenced. He submits that the social status report is not against to applicant. There is no likelihood of 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. Hence, considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there is one eye witness to the incident. However, continuous counseling of the applicant is necessary and looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and the overall nature of the crime and the fact that 3 there is a major co-accused in this case which gives rise to the suspicion that the company of the juvenile has not been good, 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. 8. Releasing juvenile boys who have committed a heinous crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice, especially if their release is found to be against the best interests of society and the victim's family. The Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the need for rehabilitation of juveniles with the need for justice, but in cases of extreme violence, the "ends of justice" provision in the law can be invoked to deny the bail as their release would lead to public outcry and a feeling that justice has not been served. Further, there is no change in the circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Though learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial has not yet commenced, no document or order-sheet of the learned Court below has been filed or placed on record to substantiate the said submission. In the absence of any material to establish any change in circumstances, this Court finds no ground to take a different view from the one already taken by the learned Courts below. 9. For the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. 10. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant, the learned concerned Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is directed to expedite the inquiry and make every endeavour to conclude the same as 4 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh