Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 2026:CGHC:9289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 203 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- Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI 23.02.2026
Digitally signed
by 1. This criminal revision is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile RAJSHEKHAR SONI Justice (Care and Protection of Minor) Act, 2015 read with Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge and Children Court, Mungeli, District
- Mungeli (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the present applicant has been dismissed therein affirming the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) in Crime No. 586/2025.
2. The applicants are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 324(5) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). As per the prosecution case, the complainant Jamuna Diwakar lodged a 2 report at Police Station Lormi alleging inter-alia that on 21.10.2025 between 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM, children were bursting crackers in front of the house. At that time, Rajkumar Ghritlahare, along with three to four associates coming from the direction of Budhwara, passed by. He used obscene language against the children for bursting crackers and moved ahead on his motorcycle. It is further stated that about 15-20 minutes later, Rajkumar and others returned and they entered into the house and began assaulting her husband Pritam Diwakar, while he was parking his vehicle inside. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant rushed out and shouted for help. When her sons Omprakash, Umesh Diwakar, and Narendra Diwakar intervened to save him, Rajkumar Ghritlahare, Dilip Ghritlahare, Rajkumar's brother, Arjun, and others began an indiscriminate assault with sticks, rods and weapon-like objects. They threatened to kill the family and vandalized the car and other vehicles parked in front of the house. As a result of this assault, the complainant, her husband Pritam, and her sons Omprakash, Narendra, and Umesh sustained serious injuries. Based on the complainant's report, the police registered the offence and investigation was initiated. A juvenile in conflict with law, the present applicant involved in the incident was arrested on 09.12.2025 and has been kept in the Observation Home, Bilaspur.
3. During course of investigation, the injured were admitted to the Community Health Center, Lormi, for treatment. Given the severity of their injuries, Pritam Diwakar, Omprakash Diwakar and Umesh Diwakar were referred to the District Hospital, Mungeli. Due to their 3 critical condition, they were subsequently moved to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, for further treatment. During interrogation, the accused Rajkumar Ghritlahare, Dilip Ghritlahare, Devkumar Ghritlahare, and Nilkumar Ghritlahare confessed that they along with the applicant/Juvenile in Conflict with Law (JCL), assaulted Pritam with rods and sticks with the intent to cause fatal injuries and commit murder. They also admitted to assaulting the family members who came to the victim's rescue.
4. The present applicant preferred an application for bail before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) which was rejected on 31.12.2025. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2025, the applicants/juveniles filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.01.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are juvenile and there is no criminal antecedents against them prior to this case. He also submits that the co-accused, namely, Neel Kumar, Dileep Kumar, Devkumar and Rajkumar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 in MCRC No. 1371 of 2026 and as such the case of the present applicants is similar to that of the co-accused who have been granted bail by this Court. Hence, on the ground of parity he prays for grant of bail to the present applicants.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
4
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. From perusal of records, it appears that the applicants are juvenile and there is no criminal antecedents against them prior to this case and further, the co-accused, namely, Neel Kumar, Dileep Kumar, Devkumar and Rajkumar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 in MCRC No. 1371 of 2026. Considering the above aspect, I am inclined to allow this criminal revision on the ground of parity, as the case of the present applicants is similar to that of the co-accused who have granted bail by this Court.
9. Consequently, criminal revision is allowed. The judgment dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge and Children Court, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2026 and order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) in Crime No. 586/2025 are set-aside. It is directed that on furnishing a surety of Rs. 50,000/- along with a bond of same amount which are to be of their natural guardian/father/mother, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for this appearance as when directed, the applicants shall be given in custody of their natural guardian/father/mother.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar