1 2026:CGHC:16142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 404 of 2026 ABC Nil ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 08/04/ 2026 1. This Criminal Revision 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 27.01.2026 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.9/2026, upholding the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of applicant filed in connection with Crime No. 530/2025 BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.04.09 14:43:00 +0530 2 registered at Police Station Citi Kotwali, Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Prafulla Sonkar, lodged a report at City Kotwali Mungeli alleging that on 11.12.2025 at about 3:30 pm, he was informed by Gendlal Sonkar that co-accused Jhamman Sapre and his family members were forcibly harvesting crops from their field in Nevaspur. Upon hearing this, the complainant along with his brothers Ajit Sonkar & Nikhil Sonkar, father Rohit Sonkar, mother Purnima Sonkar, and grandfather Janak Sonkar (now deceased) reached the field at approximately 03:45 pm and stopped the accused persons from harvesting the crop. In response, accused Jhamman Sapre, Vimal Sapre, Dujram and Dwarika acting with common intention, started hurling filthy abuses and assaulted them with sticks, iron axe and fists. As a result of which, the complainant, his parents and grandfather Janak Sonkar suffered grievous injuries. Following the complainant's report, a criminal case was registered against the applicant and other accused persons and investigation was initiated. The injured were taken to the District Hospital Mungeli for treatment and during the course of treatment, Janakram Sonkar died due to his 3 injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question due to land dispute. He submits that both the Merg and the FIR specifically name four individuals as accused, with no mention of the applicant’s involvement. Furthermore, the applicant's name does not appear in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The sole basis for the prosecution of the applicant is his identification by the injured, Prafulla and Ajit, during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). No incriminating articles have been seized from the applicant. The applicant is a student of 11th class and he is in the observation home since 23.12.2025. He further submits that there is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 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. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant was specifically named in the memorandum statement of co-accused, Vimal. It is further submitted that the applicant was 4 identified by the injured during the Test Identification Parade and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. 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. 6. Be that as it may, a social status report submitted by the concerned Probation Officer dated 07.04.2026 shows that while a quarrel occurred between the complainant and the accused parties, the applicant was merely present at the scene. The report further shows that the applicant, who is the son of one of the co-accused, is approximately 17½ years of age and a student of Class 11. According to neighbors, he is well-behaved. The social status report is not adverse to the applicant. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or 5 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. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Criminal Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant 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 applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the trial Court. 8. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai