2026:CGHC:8060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved On: 11.12.2025 Judgment Pronounced On:13.02.2026 CRR No. 1503 of 2025 A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) Through - Natural Guardian-Mother- A.M., R/o A. R. Y. (Details Attached In Separate Envelop With The Memo Of Revision.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - City- Kotwali, Dhamtari, District-

Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

C A V Judgment

1. The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 against the judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2025 wherein the bail application of the present applicant was rejected.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 06.06.2025, at about 11:15 PM, in Danipara Ward, Dhamtari, in front of the house of complainant Anusuiya Bai Dhruv, the juvenile/appellant, along with co-accused Satish and another juvenile in conflict with law, abused Vikas Dhruv, the son of the complainant, in filthy language. Upon objecting to such abuse, the juvenile/appellant, along with the co-accused, threatened Vikas Dhruv with death and assaulted him with fists and kicks. Thereafter, with the intention to kill, the juvenile/appellant assaulted Vikas Dhruv with a sharp weapon, causing an injury to his abdomen, due to which Vikas Dhruv’s intestines came out, resulting in his death. The application submitted by the guardian of the juvenile seeking bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, by order dated 15.10.2025, being aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed before this Hon’ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned court below has erred in law and facts while passing the impugned judgment. It failed to consider that keeping the juvenile/applicant in custody would expose him to criminal influence and psychological harm, thereby defeating the ends of justice. The court also ignored binding precedents of the Hon’ble High Court, including Vikki Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ankit Upadhayay @ Chotu & Others vs. State of C.G. Further, the Social Status Report was wrongly appreciated. The applicant does not consume liquor or intoxicants, contrary to the court’s observation. The report itself indicates that the deceased was the aggressor and attacked the applicant first, causing injuries to the applicant which required stitches. The applicant was not carrying a knife, and the incident occurred in self-defence, entitling him to bail. The court also failed to appreciate that criminal law cannot be based on mere probability of future offences. The applicant belongs to a poor family with no criminal antecedents, and continued detention would adversely affect his mental well-being during his stay in the observation home. Moreover, Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act presumes a child to be innocent of criminal intent up to the age of 18 years. He prays that the applicant is in captivity since 07.06.2025 therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a categorical finding recorded by learned Court below with regard to the seriousness of the offence and also given a finding that in the interest of justice, the applicants juvenile-conflict-with-law shall not be released on bail. It is further submitted that these findings are based on proper assessment of the material placed before it and therefore the finding recorded does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Learned State counsel had apprised this Court about the conduct of the applicants/accused and submits that looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the applicants/accused, they a