Chattisgarh High Court
X (Juvenile) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11975
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 366 of 2026
X (Juvenile) Nil
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Police
Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Shalvin Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.03.2026
1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by the applicant (juvenile in conflict with law) through his guardian, challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. H11/2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the present applicant against the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund in Crime No. 67/2025, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 rejecting the application for grant of bail to the juvenile, has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision for grant of bail.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2025, Assistant Sub- Inspector Nilambar Singh Netam of Police Station Singhoda had proceeded for rural patrolling along with his accompanying staff. During the course of patrolling, on the basis of information received from an informer, a grey coloured car bearing registration No. CG- 10/BJ-5828 was intercepted on National Highway No. 53 near village Rehatikhol. Upon conducting a search of the said vehicle, apart from the juvenile in conflict with law, two other persons namely Gagan Singh Bhatiya and Durgesh Kumar Sahu were found present in the car. Upon searching the car, a total of 45.0 kilograms of contraband substance ganja, having a total value of Rs. 6,75,000/-, was found illegally kept therein. When questioned regarding the said contraband substance, they stated that the said ganja was being transported from Odisha to Raipur. Thereafter, the police recorded a Dehati Nalishi at the spot. The seized contraband substance and the vehicle were seized from the joint possession of the accused persons. After returning to the police station, Crime No. 67/2025 was registered against the accused persons under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the juvenile/applicant, aged about 17 years, was a minor. Consequently, his case was separated from that of the other accused persons and he was arrested and produced before the 3 Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund, from where he was sent to the Observation Home, Mahasamund.
3. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed on 11.12.2025, wherein it has been alleged that the present juvenile was working as a household servant of co-accused Gagan Singh Bhatiya.
4. An application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was filed on behalf of the juvenile seeking grant of bail, however, the said application was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) vide order dated 02.02.2026.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. H11/2026 under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahasamund. The said appeal has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.02.2026. Hence, the present criminal revision.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the true scope and mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides that a child in conflict with law shall ordinarily be released on bail unless the case falls within the three exceptional circumstances contemplated therein. It is submitted that none of the said exceptions are attracted in the present case, yet the courts below have erroneously rejected the bail application 4 merely on the ground that the release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice. It is further contended that no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant and he was merely accompanying the co-accused as a household servant. He further submits that several procedural irregularities have been committed by the prosecution during search and seizure, including preparation of a joint seizure memo, non- mention of certified weights and measures in the Panchnama, delay of about 12 days in producing the seized contraband before the Magistrate in violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, and absence of proper certification and hash value in the electronic evidence under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as well as non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 105 of the BNSS. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and only one mobile phone belonging to him has been seized by the police. The mother of the applicant, who is the deponent in the supporting affidavit, has undertaken to ensure that the applicant continues his studies and does not associate with persons of criminal background if released on bail. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time and continued detention of the juvenile would be unjustified, particularly when in a similar matter a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No. 622/2022 granted bail to a juvenile accused even in a case involving transportation of 148 kg of ganja. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the applicant be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice.
5
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below. It is submitted that a commercial quantity of contraband substance i.e. 45 kilograms of ganja has been seized from the vehicle in which the present juvenile was found travelling along with the co-accused persons, which clearly indicates his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court have rightly considered the gravity and seriousness of the offence while rejecting the bail application of the applicant. Therefore, it is contended that looking to the nature of the offence and the material available on record, the present criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the quantity of contraband seized, which is commercial in nature i.e. 45 kilograms of ganja and the fact that the present applicant was found travelling in the vehicle from which the contraband substance has been recovered along with the co-accused persons, this Court is of the view that the both the Courts have not committed any illegality or perversity in rejecting the bail application of the juvenile. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was merely accompanying the co-accused as a household servant and had no knowledge of the contraband substance cannot be accepted at this stage in view of the material available on record. 6
Further, it is also relevant to note that the bail application of the co- accused namely Durgesh Kumar Sahu has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1849/2026 vide order dated 23.02.2026. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court.
10. Consequently, the present criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. H11/2026, arising out of order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund in Crime No. 67/2025, does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
11. Accordingly, the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court are hereby affirmed and the present criminal revision stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan