1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 174 of 2026 1 - XYZ ... Applicant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - ABC (Victim) (Details of the Victim is given in closed envelope). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Shri Vinod Tekam, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16 .0 2 .202 6 1. Pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2026, the victim and her mother appeared before the court through virtual mode from the concerned District Legal Services Authority and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. The submission is taken on record. 2. Present is a Criminal Revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the Act, 2015’), against the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur and Children Court, Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 319/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 has been dismissed and the order of rejection of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.02.19 10:24:36 +0530 2 dated 03.12.2025 passed in Crime No.556/2025 is affirmed. The applicant is a juvenile in conflict with law who has been in custody since 26.09.2025 in the offence of aforesaid crime registered at Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur for the offence under Section 65(2) and 49 of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that the applicant is admittedly a juvenile in conflict with law and he is in observation home since 26.09.2025. As per Section 12 of the Act, 2015, for the purpose of releasing the juvenile on bail, the gravity of the offence is not to be seen. The juvenile in conflict with law is a student of 10th Class and his final examination is scheduled from 21.02.2026. There is no possibility that after releasing him on bail, he will again come in association with any criminal person and there is no reason to believe that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. She would further submit the juvenile is in custody since 26.09.2025 and till date the evidence has not been started. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and the period of custody of juvenile in conflict with law, he may be released on bail. She would rely upon the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Supreme Court in SLP(Cr.)No.9566 of 2024 (Juvenile in conflict with law Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the juvenile along with two other co-accused persons it is not a fit case where the juvenile be released on bail. 3 Referring to report of Probationary Officer he would submits that the manner in which the juvenile in conflict with law committed the offence as also considering the nature of offence, the juvenile in conflict with law may not be released on bail as regular bail applications of other co- accused persons have already been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.01.2026 passed in MCrC No.10176 of 2025. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and material annexed with the Revision. 6. Before considering the case of the juvenile in conflict with law, it would be appropriate if Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015 is taken into consideration. For ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereunder: "Section 12:(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non- bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or Is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on ball with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” 7. A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a matter of routine, in case an accused person happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained, and is brought before the Board, such person notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other special law which is in force should be released on bail. But at the same time the latter part of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual 4 background of a case if it appears to the Court that releasing of said juvenile can bring him into association of the company with which he landed himself in the remand home, or he may get exposed to moral and psychological danger, as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that upon his release from the observation home can lead to exposing the juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may refuse to release the juvenile on ball. 8. In order to examine whether any three exceptions of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 are present in the case, the social status report of the applicant is perused. In the case diary two social status reports have been annexed. One is dated 26.09.2025 and another is 28.01.2026. In the report dated 26.09.2025 it has been reported by the concerned Probation Officer that juvenile has committed the offence on the instant of his friend whereas, in the second report dated 28.01.2026 it is reported that juvenile in conflict with law denied the offence and stated to be falsely implicated on account of previous election issues. Both the reports are self contradictory. Further, there are two other co-accused persons in the case. The another limb of submission of the learned counsel for juvenile in conflict with law is that there is a delay in trial and the juvenile has been in custody since 26.09.2025. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the charge sheet has already been filed on 22.11.2025 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, this court does not find sufficient ground to release the juvenile in conflict with law on the ground of delay in trial. 5 10. Although the bail may be a rule but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile. Under the alleged offence committed with the minor victim, release of the juvenile applicant on bail would definitely defeat the ends of justice. One of the exceptional circumstances, wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, is that, in case, “the release would defeat the ends of justice”. Justice is not a one-way street, which is only to be appreciated from the point of view of a juvenile in conflict with the law. It is also a concept that would be alive both for the victim and for society at large. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the document submitted by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate Court does not warrant any interference and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 but would fall within the exception carved out in the said section. The consideration in the order cited by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Juvenile in conflict with law Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts and consideration of the present case and no benefit could be extended to juvenile in conflict with law. 12. Accordingly, no good ground has been made out for allowing this Criminal Revision calling for interference with the order under challenge, and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder