1 2026:CGHC:6648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1538 of 2025 1 - ABC (Juvenile in conflict with law) (Description of applicant and the name of legal guardian is in closed envelope) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ...Non-applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : None. For State/Non-applicant : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 05-02-2026 1. It transpires from the order sheet dated 02-01-2026 that when the matter was called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to pursue the revision, yet considering that the applicant is in observation home the revision was admitted for hearing and notice was issued to the complainant. 2. Again on 02-02-2026 when the matter was called for hearing no one appeared, however, mother of the victim appeared through virtual mode and her submission was recorded. 3. Today also, when the matter is being repeatedly called for hearing no one appears on behalf of the applicant to pursue the present criminal revision. 4. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 13-11-2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.13 21:02:46 +0530 2 (POCSO Act) Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2025, filed by the applicant under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act, 2015’), has been dismissed. The said Criminal Appeal was filed against the order dated 29-10-2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.85/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 was dismissed. 5. The applicant who is a juvenile in conflict with law has been arrested on 15- 04-2025 and sent to observation home for the offence of Crime No.58/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh for the offence under Section 191(2), 331(2), 115(2), 351(2), 74, 76, 79, 63, 64 of B.N.S. and Section 67 of Information Technology Act and Section 3(2) (v)(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’). He preferred a bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh which was rejected vide order dated 29-10- 2025, against which the criminal appeal was filed under Section 101 of the Act, 2015 which has also been dismissed on 13-11-2025 against which the present criminal revision has been filed. 6. Though, no one appears on behalf of the applicant to pursue his present criminal revision, however this Court gone through the documents annexed with the present criminal revision as well as the case diary. 7. In case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2011 (1) CGLRW-140, in para -6 of the said judgment, this court has observed as under:- “6.The scope and object of provision regarding grant of bail to a Juvenile as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act came up for consideration before the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat @ Bhrat & Another (supra), wherein it was held that the use of word "Shall" by the legislative provisions in the Section 12 of the Act is of great significance and which raises a presumption 3 that the particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the Juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the Juvenile shall not be so released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section also uses the word "Shall" imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the Board. It has also been held that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to the Juvenile and would be liable to be rejected only when it appears to the Board that either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing.” 8. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder: “Section 12 Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. —(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.” 9. A plain reading of the said section by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a matter of routine, in case an accused 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 of the Act, 2015 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual 4 background of a case, if it appears to the Court that releasing of the 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 show 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 bail. 10. Though the merits of the case cannot be relevant factor while deciding the bail application of a juvenile in conflict with law, but this Court cannot loss sight that the applicant who is a juvenile in conflict with law along with his friends allegedly committed the offence by entering into the house of the victim to pressurize her to remove her clothes, prepared the obscene video, threatened her and fled away from the place and thereafter, they started threatening them to extort money. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have committed by the accused persons including the juvenile in conflict with law clearly shows their mental and physical soundness which disentitles the present applicant for his consideration under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and it puts him in the later part of proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, if the applicant is released on bail, there is every chance of his coming into association with known bad company which would further expose him to moral as well as psychological danger, and if that happens on his release, then the ends of justice would get defeated. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the Juvenile Justice Board does not warrant any interference by this Court at this juncture, and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 but would fall within the exception carved out in the said Section. 5 12. Accordingly, no good case is made out for allowing the instant criminal revision calling for interference with the orders under challenge. 13. Therefore, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil