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
CRR No. 202 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 For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunita Manikpure, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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