1 CGHC010250182026 2026:CGHC:42297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 884 of 2026 Abc Nil ... Applicant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nandghat (Police Chowki Maro), Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. GA. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act, 2015”) against the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge/Children Court, Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.67/2024, whereby the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bemetara (C.G.), rejecting the bail application of the applicant, has been affirmed. The applicant is a child in conflict with law in connection with Crime No.151/2024 registered at Police Station AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2026.09.30 10:49:39 +0530 AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI 2 Nandghat, Police Chowki Maro, Bemetara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 394, 397, 302 and 201 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.06.2024, at about 3:00 a.m., the present applicant, a child in conflict with law, along with three other persons, stopped the deceased, Mahetaru Singh Jagat and other persons while they were proceeding towards their village. Thereafter, the applicant and the other accused persons allegedly looted a mobile phone and cash amount of 4,500/- and, during the course of ₹ the incident, stabbed the deceased, Mahetaru Singh Jagat, as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged and, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for the offences as mentioned above. The bail application filed by the applicant before the Juvenile Justice Board was rejected, which order was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has remained in the Observation Home since 25.06.2024 and, by now, has attained adulthood. It is further submitted that a similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2899/2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6894/2026. However, both the Courts below have rejected the prayer for bail without properly considering the mandate of Section 12 of the Act, 2015. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the present incident might have occurred due to 3 bad company. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant did not assault the deceased. It is also submitted that his continued stay in the Observation Home is likely to adversely affect his welfare and development. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the learned Courts below have committed no error in rejecting the prayer for bail. He further submits that, as per the Social Investigation Report, the applicant was not in good company, due to which he committed the alleged offence. Therefore, according to learned State counsel, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as the Social Investigation Report. 6. In the present case, a similarly situated co-accused has already been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.05.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.6894/2026. The Social Investigation Report and the case diary placed on record do not disclose any previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. It is also borne out from the record that the applicant has attained adulthood and has remained in the Observation Home since 25.06.2024. The report further indicates that his conduct and behaviour in the Observation Home have been good. 7. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the applicant, that the applicant is in observation home since 4 25.06.2024, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the Social Investigation Report, and particularly the mandate contained in Section 12 of the Act, 2015, this Court is of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe that the release of the applicant is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. Consequently, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court are hereby set aside. 9. It is directed that, if the mother or father of the applicant/child in conflict with law furnishes a personal bond in the sum of 25,000/- ₹ along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board with an undertaking to produce the applicant before the Board as and when directed, the applicant shall be released from the Observation Home and placed in the custody of his parents. 10. The parents of the applicant shall ensure his proper care, protection, education and welfare and shall also ensure his appearance before the Juvenile Justice Board on each date fixed by it. The Juvenile Justice Board shall also ensure the welfare of the applicant and his continued participation in the proceedings. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Ajay Judge