Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHUBHAM SINGH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date:

2026.03.12

18:02:36 +0530

2026:CGHC:11676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 266 of 2026 Xyz Nil ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Fasterpur, Distt. Mungeli C.G.

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

11/03/ 2026

1. The present Revision petition 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 dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2026, upholding the order dated

31.12.2025, passed in Criminal Case No.132/2025, by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, District – Mungeli (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 53/2025 registered at Police Station Fasterpur, District – Mungeli for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 309(4), 238, 61(2)(a), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

2. As per the prosecution’s case, the complainant Hemchand Sahu lodged a Dehali Nalisi in Fasterpur police station to the effect that on 10.09.2025, the applicant along with other major co-accused assaulted him and his nephew Hemprasad with an iron rod due to which they sustained injuries. Thereafter, they informed the police about the incident over the phone, then after some time the police came and took him and Hemprasad to the District Hospital Mungeli for treatment. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on

18.09.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. Nothing has been seized from the applicant and no test identification parade has been conducted by the prosecution. The social status report is not against the applicant. The applicant is a student and he is in the observation home since 18.09.2025. He further submits that 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.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the memorandum statement of co-accused Sunil Sahu, he stated the name of the applicant. However, the social status report is not against the applicant.

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. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by 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, 201