[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ALLENA ANNAJEE
ANNAJEE RAO
RAO Date:
2026.03.16
14:53:01
+0530
2026:CGHC:12073
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 200 of 2026
XYZ (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) S/o B (As Per Section 74 Of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015) --- Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil
Line, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent
XYZ (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) S/o B (As Per Section 74 Of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015) --- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil
Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G). --- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunita Manikpure, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
13/03/2026
1. The present Revisions under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have been preferred
against the impugned orders dated 13.10.2025 and 01.12.2025
passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) and
Children Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Cr.A No. 240/2025 & Cr.A.No.
299/2025 respectively upholding the orders dated 25.09.2025 and
12.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile
Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail applications of the
applicant relating to Crime No.805/ 2025 registered at Police Station
Civil Lines Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
103(1), 109, 49,3(5) of BNS, 2023 have been rejected.
2. Since both the revisions are relating to the same crime number, they
are decided by this common order.
3. (i) A per the prosecution case, there are total 4 accused in this
case including the present two juvenile-applicants and two other
adult accused. The allegation against these juvenile-applicants are
that they played an active role in the murder of one Sumit Bandhe in
collusion with an adult accused.
(ii) As per the prosecution case, complainant Vijay Kumar
Bandhe lodged a report on 13.07.2025 to the effect that on the same
day at about 13.45 hours near a Kirana Store at Jarhabhata,
Bilaspur, certain altercations took place between accused Suraj @
Sonu Bhaskar and Aryan, who is the friend of his brother Sumit
Bandhe. Complainant's brother Sumit Bandhe intervened and tried
to pacify both the aggressors. Then, all of a sudden, adult accused
Suraj @ Sonu started hurling abuses against Sumit Bandhe and
warned him to leave the place otherwise he will kill the deceased.
Thereafter, accused Suraj Bhaskar assaulted Sumit Bandhe with
knife and caused fatal injury on his chest of and arm, due to which,
Sumit Bandhe fell down on the spot and succumbed to injuries.
(iii) It is alleged that both the present juvenile applicants caught
hold of the hand of deceased Sumit Bandhe whereas the adult
accused Suraj assaulted the deceased with knife. On such report,
the crime was registered and the juveniles were arrested on
14.07.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have
no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood that their release
would bring them into association with any known criminal or
expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger. However,
both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail
without considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2015, therefore, the
applicants may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for grant of bail. He submits that there are 5 eye-witnesses who
have seen the incident. Adult accused Suraj and the present
juvenile-applicants happen to be the brothers and they belonged to
one family. As per the eye-witness account, at the time of incident,
these two juveniles caught hold of the hands of the deceased while
the other adult accused Suraj inflicted knife injuries. The bail
application of another adult accused Chhotu @ Kunwar Singh
Banjare has been dismissed by order dated 11.02.2026 passed this
Court in MCRC No. 858/2026. Hence, looking to the gravity of the
crime and the role played by these juvenile offenders, they may not
be released on bail.
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. The Social Investigation Report reflects that the the father of juvenile
applicants is no more; they are already in the company of adult
accused and there is no family supervision on them. The main
accused Suraj is their elder brother who was involved in one
previous case.
8. The bail application of the applicants were rejected by the Juvenile
Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicants are released
on bail it would defeat the ends of justice.
9. The Appellate Court held that the crime was committed by the
juveniles in collusion with adult accused, therefore, if bail is granted,
they may come into contact with known accused persons, which
adversely affect their psyche and morale defeating the purpose of
justice and accordingly rejected the appeal.
10. 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.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the over-all facts
and circumstances of the case and further looking to the role played
by the juvenile applicants as also the back-ground that they are
already in the company of major co-accused, their father has died,
their elder brother himself was involved in the offence and there is
no family control and supervision over the juveniles, 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.
Consequently, these Revisions are dismissed.
12. However, looking to the long detention of the juveniles, the trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is
completed as early as possible.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
