Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
2025:CGHC:36594
PATEL Date:
NAFR
2025.07.31
09:36:59
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 793 of 2025
1 - ABC (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And
The Name Of Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope).
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Of Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For the Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
28/07/2025
1. This revision is filed by the juvenile under Section 102 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in
short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 24.05.2025 passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2025 whereby the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Balodabazar, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) has rejected the appeal arising
out of order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Balodabazar relating to
Crime No. 231/2025 registered at P.S. Bhatapara, District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable u/s
103(1) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 whereby the bail application of the
present applicant has been rejected.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.04.2025, at about
8:30 p.m., the applicant in conflict with the law was involved in
an altercation and physical fight with the deceased, Ramayan
Dhruv, and others at a Chulmati program in Village Borsidh.
The applicant, along with his adult associates, was allegedly
using abusive language, which was objected to by the deceased
and his friends. This led to a dispute and physical altercation,
during which the applicant stabbed Ramayan Dhruv in the
chest. The deceased was taken to District Hospital Balodabazar
for treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctors. On
such information, the Police registered an FIR against the
applicant and others u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023. Since the
present applicant was juvenile, he filed an application under
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which
was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was
preferred, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the juvenile is
in detention since 04.04.2025 and there are other major co-
accused persons involved in the case and the applicant has no
criminal antecedents and there is no incriminating evidence
available against the applicant to connect him with the crime in
question. He submits that the social status report is not
against the juvenile and both the Juvenile Justice Board and
the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information
Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and
passed the impugned judgment and order without considering
the position of law and have declined bail to the applicant.
4. He submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the
Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the
statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is
pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering
the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of
2015. He further submits that the applicant had no criminal
back-ground and the orders passed by both the Courts below
are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits that
in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act and looking to the long detention of the applicant,
he deserves to be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
juvenile is main accused of committing the murder of Ramayan
Dhruv and two other major co-accused are also involved in the
offence. He points out that the social status report indicates
that the applicant is in bad company ("galat sangat"). It is
further submitted that the knife used to stab the deceased was
recovered from the applicant, establishing his involvement in
the crime as main accused. Therefore, the orders passed by the
two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any
interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material available on record.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the applicant along with
other major co-accused killed the deceased by assaulting him
with a knife. The knife was recovered from the possession of the
applicant and he is the main accused. The type of injuries found
on the body of the deceased prima facie shows that the murder
was committed in gruesome manner.
8. Releasing juvenile boys who have committed a heinous crime
like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice,
especially if their release is found to be against the best
interests of society and the victim's family. The Juvenile Justice
Act aims to balance the need for rehabilitation of juveniles with
the need for justice, but in cases of extreme violence, the "ends
of justice" provision in the law can be invoked to deny the bail
as their release would lead to public outcry and a feeling that
justice has not been served.
9. Having regard to the gravity of offence and the nature of
allegations levelled against the applicant, I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as
the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the
revisions. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
10. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the
Juvenile Justice Board concerned for necessary information and
compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Sourabh P.
Judge
