1 2026:CGHC:7620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 15 of 2026 ABC Juvenile In Conflict With Law (Details Of The Petitioner In Closed Envelope) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Birra, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Also Mentioned In Impugned Judgment As State of Chhattisgarh Through- PS. AJK, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11/02/ 2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the victim though notice has been served. 2. The 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 SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.12 16:52:36 +0530 2 dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 180/2025, upholding the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Janjgir, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 111/2025 registered at Police Station Birra, District – Janjgir Champa for offence punishable under Sections 103(2), 61(2)A, 238 of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act. 3. In this case there are total 9 accused persons in which 2 are juvenile and 7 are major. As per the prosecution’s case, based on the report of Jitendra Baghel, Crime was registered at Birra Police Station. During investigation, it was found that on 06.09.2025, the appellant, a juvenile in conflict with law, along with other adult accused, conspired and killed Mahendra Baghel, the complainant's brother, by strangling him with a gamcha, and disposed of his body and motorcycle in a river to destroy evidence. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 09.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in crime in question. He further 3 submits that there is no direct evidence available on record against the appellant and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence i.e. memorandum statements of other co-accused persons, he has been implicated. Nothing has been seized from him except his mobile. Further, 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 Court below have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail. However, submits that the social status report is in favour of 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. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by 4 the concerned Probation Officer states the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. 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 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. The Courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 8. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the 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 local 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 his/her 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 5 trial Court. 9. 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/parents of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham