1 2026:CGHC:15562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 258 of 2026 1 - XYZ (Juvenile In Conflict With Law Description Of Applicant And Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.05/2026, upholding the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Balrampur, District – HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.04.06 17:54:23 +0530 2 Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 164/2025 registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2) of BNS and Section 4(2), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that a report has been lodged by the mother of the victim stating that on 27.11.2025 at about 2:00 pm, she had gone to the paddy field to harvest paddy and her husband had also gone to Shankargarh for work, and her daughter/victim, aged about 4 years, was alone at home. When she returned from work at about 6:00 pm, her daughter (the victim) approached her in tears, unable to walk properly. Upon being questioned, the victim disclosed that while she was in the threshing floor, the applicant arrived there; he took he to her father’s bedding, which was laid out in a tractor trolley parked within the threshing floor, and subjected her to sexual assault/rape. Injuries and swelling were observed in the victim's genital area. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in observation home since 01.12.2025. The social investigation report is in the favour of the applicant. There is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to 3 moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is aged about 15 to 16 years and the applicant committed the grave offence of rape with the minor innocent girl who was aged about 4 to 5 years, therefore, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail. 5. On 11.03.2026, the victim and her mother appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA, and objection was raised to grant of bail to the applicant. 6. 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. 7. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the grounds of gravity of the offence committed by the applicant and the fact that the trial is at a 4 preliminary stage, and if the applicant be released on bail, there is a possibility of the evidence being tampered with and there is a likelihood that the ends of justice would be defeated. 8. By the Additional Sessions Court (FTC), Ramanujganj, the appeal of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicant, who is above 15 years of age and possesses mature thinking and understanding, nevertheless committed the serious crime of rape and penetrative sexual assault on a 4- year-old innocent minor victim. In such a case, if the applicant is granted bail, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant may come into contact with known criminals, face moral, physical or psychological danger, or that the ends of justice would be defeated. 9. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the overall situation of the crime, 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. 10. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 258/2026 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu