Abc Nil v. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Amanaka, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) 21/04/2026 Order on Board

1. This revision is filed by the juvenile under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 11.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 94/2026 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur, Chhattisgarh has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal Case No.400/2024 relating to Crime No. 286/2024 registered at P.S. Saraswatinagar , District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable u/ss 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 whereby the bail application of the present applicant has been rejected.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Dilip Nayak had 2 informed to the Police that he came to know from few children that the dead body of an unknown person is lying near at Dumar Talab near M.B.P.L. Ground, upon which, the police inspected the place and found that dead body was in decomposed condition. The Police registered a Merg report and FIR against unknown person u/s 103(1) of BNS, 2023. During investigation, it was found that on 17.07.2024, the present juvenile applicant and two other juvenile offenders have committed murder of deceased Naresh Chandrakar. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against all the 3 juvenile accused. The present applicant being juvenile filed application u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was filed against unknown person; the juvenile-applicant “NS” is in detention since 29.7.2024 thereby he has already spent in jail for 1 year 8 months and 25 days and there is no eye-witness to the incident and only on the basis of last seen theory developed in the statement of Latish Kumar, the applicant NS has been roped in and further the seizure was made from open place and not from the applicant. P.W.1 Latish Gajbiye has been examined before the Court on 09.02.2026 and he has turned hostile to the prosecution case, therefore, there is no incriminating evidence available against this juvenile applicant to connect him with the crime in question. He further submits that the social status report shows that though behaviour of the juvenile NS is good, but he needs special care and attention by his family. He submits that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned order without considering the position of law and have declined bail to the applicant. He further 3 submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and looking to the long detention of the applicant, he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that juvenile is accused of committing murder of one Naresh Chandrakar and apart from the applicant NS, two other juveniles RN and AB are also involved in the offence. Earlier, the bail application of other juvenile-accused ‘AB’ was rejected by this Court on 25.07.2025 in CRR No. 690/2025. He submits that one blood stained T- Shirt was recovered from juvenile ‘AB” whereas one ear-ring of deceased was recovered from the present juvenile “NS’ . He submits that there are two criminal antecedents reported against the present applicant NS suggesting his involvement in two other offences of theft and pornography under IPC. Therefore, the orders passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the record shows that this applicant-juvenile NS along with other juvenile accused RN and AB took the deceased Naresh Chandrakar to a vacant plot where they killed him. The type of injuries found on the body of the deceased prima facie shows that the murder was committed in gruesome manner.

7. Releasing juvenile boys who are accused of heinous crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice, especially if their release is found to be against the best interests of society and the victim's family. 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 4 not been served.

8. Having regard to the gravity of offence and the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant as also the fact that in same crime number, the bail of other juvenile accused AB has been rejected on 25.07.2025 and further looking to his past involvement in two other criminal cases, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the JJB warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.

9. It is pertinent to note that while rejecting the CRR No.690 of 2025 filed by other juvenile accused AB on 25.07.2025, this Court directed the JJB to expedite the trial/inquiry as early as possible. Therefore, looking to the long detention of the juvenile- offenders, the JJB is directed to conclude the trial/inquiry as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. Registry shall send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao