Bail for a juvenile can be denied under the 'ends of justice' provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, in cases of planned and heinous crimes, even if the Social Investigation Report is generally favorable.

Order on Board

1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.02/2026 upholding the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in Crime No. 583/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS was rejected.

2.

(i) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 06.09.2025, complainant Salikram Chauhan gave merg intimation to the Police Station, Kasdol that a dead body of an unknown person was lying beside the Jonk river. On such intimation, the merg was registered and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The dead-body was identified as Shiv Prasad.

(ii) During investigation, the statement of juvenile applicant was recorded wherein he stated that the juvenile had grudge against his uncle, deceased Shiv Prasad Sahu because of his abusive language and quarreling, therefore, had planned to kill his uncle with the help of one adult accused Akash. On the date of incident, the juvenile along-with the adult accused took the deceased in the Car on the pretext of offering him liquor and took him to Jonk river, where the juvenile, co-accused and the deceased sat and consumed liquor. During this time, as per the pre-plan the applicant juvenile took out the Tangia hidden from sand and assaulted the deceased Shiv Prasad from behind whereas the other accused stabbed him with the intention of killing him on the neck due to which,the deceased died on the spot. After killing the deceased, the applicant and the adult accused buried the body of the deceased in the sand.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicant to connect him with the crime in question and the juvenile has been arrested only on suspicion, after recording his memorandum statement. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Vikki Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh reported 2015 (2) CGLJ 374 and submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and mechanically rejected the bail. He further submits that the Social Investigation Report shows that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant and his behaviour is normal. He further submits that there is no likelihood of his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the juvenile applicant and another adult accused made a plan to kill the accused and killed the deceased who happens to be Uncle (younger father of the applicant). He is already in contact with adult accused and in bad company. He further submits that the Tangia was seized from the juvenile applicant and the knife was seized from co-accused, therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence , the may not be released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the ma