[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1527 of 2025
1 - Xyz (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 Khadgawan, District : Manendragarh-
Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
27/02/2026
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 08.08.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge, (Under POCSO Act) Chirmiri,
District - Koriya, C.G. in Criminal Appeal Case No.
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.02.27
16:59:14
+0530
42/2025, upholding the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.) rejecting the bail
application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.
125/2025 registered at Police Station Khadgawan, District
- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and
Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.
2. As per the prosecution's case, on 06.06.2025, a letter was
received by the concerned police station from the office of
the Medical Officer, Health Center, Khadgawan, District -
Manedragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, to the effect that on
28.05.2025, a minor/unmarried victim had conceived a
pregnancy. Based on this, an investigation was carried out
in which the statement of the victim was recorded. In her
statement, the victim stated that the applicant lured her
away on the pretext of marriage and abducted her. On
30.03.2025 at about 8:00 pm, he forcibly raped her for the
first time, then raped her several times thereafter.
Thereafter, on 05.05.2025, he raped her for the last time,
due to which she became pregnant. Based on this, offence
has been registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further
submits that the applicant is aged about 16 to 17 years
and the victim is also aged about 14 to 15 years and the
victim resided along with the applicant in a separate house,
where the applicant and victim resided together for a period
of one and half month and during this period, no missing
report whatever lodged by the family member of victim,
which shows that the family members of victim know this
fact that the victim is resided along with the applicant. The
applicant is in the observation home since 07.06.2025 and
the social status report is his favour. 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 the grant of bail and submits that the
applicant, who is aged about 16-17 years, committed a
heinous offence with a minor girl who is aged about 14-15
years, due to which she got pregnant and gave birth to a
dead baby. However, he submits that the social status
report is in favour of the applicant, and the applicant has
no criminal record.
5. The victim and her mother appeared through V.C. from the
concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant of bail
to the applicant.
6. 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.
7. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by
the concerned Probation Officer. A bare perusal of it would
show that the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but
he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's
education is interrupted, and the applicant and the victim
are close relatives. 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, 2015. The
trail Court as well as appellate Court have, therefore,
committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors
the mandate of the Act, 2015.
8. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Special Judge and
the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Revision
is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with
one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and
when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of
the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the
Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall
also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety,
which shall be duly verified by the trial Court.
9. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish
an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact
with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be
indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the
applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
