1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 234 of 2026 1 - Abc (Juvenile In Conflict With Law). --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Bastar (C.G.). --- Respondent For Applicant (R-B) : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. CRR No. 241 of 2026 1 - Abc (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Details Of Applicant In Closed Envelope) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. --- Respondent For Applicant (PRY) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 03/03/ 2026 1. The present Revisions under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTSC)(POCSO), District- Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeals No. 07/2026 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.03.03 17:25:22 +0530 2 and 05/2026, arising out of the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, District-Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) whereby the bail applications of the applicants in connection with Crime No. 445/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) BNS and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act were rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the complainant lodged a written complaint alleging that his younger brother, Karan Baghel, was murdered by an unknown person between the intervening night of 04.10.2025 and 05.10.2025. On such complaint, the police have started the investigation and during the course of investigation, the juvenile in conflict with law i.e., applicant- ‘R-B’ in CRR No. 234/2026 and applicant- PRY in CRR No. 241/2026 have been arrested in connection with the aforementioned crime and have been kept in an observation home in relation to the present crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. It is further submitted that as per the PM report, the cause of death of the deceased, Karan Baghel, is shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries, and the seizure of the knife has not been made from the present applicants. The applicants have no criminal antecedent and they are in the observation home since 06.10.2025. The social status report is not adverse to the applicants. There is no likelihood that their 3 release would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have rejected the bail in a mechanical manner. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicants may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants and submits that an Activa, mobile phone, and t-shirt have been seized from the applicant (R-B) in CRR No. 234/2026, and clothes and a bike have been seized from the applicant (PR-Y). There were total four accused persons, including one major co-accused person involved in the crime, who is a relative of one of the co-juvenile. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicants, they may not 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. The bail application of the applicants were rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicants are released on bail it is likely to bring them into 4 association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicants’ appeals and warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) and affirmed the said order. 8. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is a case with an eye witness, the applicants allegedly played a significant role in the incident, and from perusal of the social status report, it is evident that there is one major co-accused who is a relative of one of the co- juvenile. The trial has not yet commenced, and granting bail to the applicants at this stage would result in lack of proper care and protection and would likely expose them to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. 9. Consequently, these Revisions have no merit and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.