1 2026:CGHC:10814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 240 of 2026 XYZ (Juvenile Who Conflict With Law) Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Karan Bahrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 02/03/ 2026 1. The present 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 30.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) & Children Court, Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.321/2025, upholding the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Principal BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.03 16:06:29 +0530 2 Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (CG) whereby the bail application of applicant ‘SY’ (For sake of convenience, the applicant is referred to as ‘SY’) in connection with Crime No. 624/2025 registered at Police Station Bilha, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 119(2), 192(3), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 103(1) of BNS, 2023 has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 28.11.2025, a complaint was lodged at Bilha police station, Bilaspur, alleging that the complainant was attending a wedding function with friends, including co-accused Sandeep and Ramprasad, and two minors. During the dance, Sandeep allegedly abused and slapped the complainant due to accidental hand contact. When the complainant's uncle, Badku @ Rambhajan Yadav, intervened, the applicant and other co- accused started beating his uncle and threatened to kill him, while another juvenile co-accused stabbed his uncle three times with a knife due to which he fell on the ground. Badku @ Rambhajan Yadav was taken to the hospital and during treatment he was declared dead by the doctor. Following an investigation, offence was registered against the applicant and other co-accused and the applicant was arrested on 29.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 3 applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that as per postmortem report, the deceased sustained only stab injuries which are alleged to have been caused by the juvenile co-accused and not by the applicant. The applicant is a student of 12th Class and he is in the observation home since 29.11.2025. 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. 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 the grant of bail and submits that the applicant along with other juvenile and major co-accused assaulted the deceased with hands and fists and one juvenile co-accused stabbed the deceased with knife. Hence, considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short “the Act, 2015”) makes it absolutely 4 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 was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that the offence was committed by the applicant with two major and two juvenile co-accused and releasing on bail may put the juvenile himself in moral, physical, or psychological danger; he may come into contact with other accused persons. 8. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicant on the ground that the applicant played an active role with two major and two juvenile co-accused in commission of the crime. The applicant has also assaulted the deceased with hand and fist. The social investigation report shows that the juvenile in conflict with the law is influenced by their peer group. Therefore, he needs continuous counseling and proper care. The possibility of physical and psychological danger to the child cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. By keeping him in an observation 5 home, he will benefit from child welfare schemes and regular counseling and moral values will develop in him. 9. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the Probation Officer, the overall nature of the crime and the fact that there are two major and two juvenile 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai