##PAGE1##

1

Digitally

signed by

ALLENA

ALLENA ANNAJEE

ANNAJEE RAO

RAO Date:

2026.02.05

10:34:19

+0530

2026:CGHC:6346

NAFR

H

IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRR No. 81 of 2026

Abc Nil ... Petitioner

versus

State of Chhattisgarh through - S.H.O., P.S. Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent

For the petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate

For the State : Ms. Avleen Juneja, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

04/02/ 2026

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 03.12.2025 passed by the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO)Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, in

Criminal Appeal No. 175/2025 upholding the order dated 27.11.2025

passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board,

Janjgir (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 447/2025 whereby the bail

application of the applicant relating to Crime No.442/2025 registered

at P.S. Janjgir, for the offence u/s 137(2, 64(1) of BNS and sections

2

4 & 6 has been rejected.

2.

(i) As per the prosecution case, a complaint was lodged by the

mother of victim on 10.10,.20225 stating that on 09.10.2025 at

about 8.30 a.m., her minor daughter left the house for school but did

not return to the home till evening, therefore, the complaint was filed

against an unknown person. On such report, crime was registered.

During investigation, it was discovered that the juvenile applicant

had allured the victim and took her away to Jammu where he

committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and

further they stayed at Jammu in a rented house for a period of 1

month and thereafter at his grandmother’s home for some days and

on 21.11.2025 the applicant was arrested by the police.

(ii) The applicant had filed application u/s 12 of the Juvenile

Justice Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, which has been

rejected by the trial Court, against which, he had filed appeal. The

appellate Court has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order

passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Hence this appeal.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of the

Supreme Court rendered in case of Juvenile in conflict with law V

Versus The State of Rajasthan decided on 14^th August, 2024 and

submits that both the courts below have not properly considered the

essential ingredients of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and in

a mechanical manner rejected the bail of the juvenile. He further

submits that the Social Status Report does not show any negative

result for release of the applicant and 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

and it supports the release of the applicant. The report further

3

shows that the juvenile is a regular student of 10^th Class and its

examination is scheduled to be held w.e.f., 17^th February, 2026. He

submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.11.2025 and trial is

likely to take time, therefore, considering the provisions of Section

12 of the Act, the appellant may be released 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 had taken

away the minor girl of 15-16 years of age from the lawful custody of

her parents and committed forcible sexual intercourse.

5.

The victim along-with her mother appeared through VC from the

concerned DLSA and expressed no-objection to grant bail.

6.

I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7.

In this case, the bail application of the juvenile was rejected by the

Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court mainly on the

ground that if the applicant is released on bail there is a possibility of

his exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger. The

Appellate Court has also observed that the juvenile applicant is

accused of committing