X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 . The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additonal Session Judge (FTC), Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.133/2025 upholding the order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.147/2024 registered at Police Station Kabir Nagar, DistrictRaipuuur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294,

¶15

2

¶16

302, 201, 34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act was rejected .

¶17

2 . The prosecution case, in short, is that, on 29.06.2024, at night, the accused, Altaf, engaged in a verbal altercation and physical assault with the Mohammad Mukim Khan(deceased). The situation was temporarily diffused by the intervention of Mohammad Moin. However, about an hour later, Altaf, along with his son juvenile applicant and Mohammad Jafir, returned to the deceased's residence and resumed the altercation. During this altercation, the applicant allegedly stabbed the deceased in the chest and arm with a sharp knife, causing injuries that led to excessive bleeding. The deceased was subsequently taken to AIMS hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead. On report being made in this regard, the said offence has been registered against the applicant.

¶18

3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the applicant is in observation home since 06.07.2024 and the social status report is in favour of the applicant. There is no likelihood of his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶19

4 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes

¶20

3

¶21

the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant stabbed the deceased with a knife. There were two other major co-accused persons involved in the crime, who are the father and brother of the applicant. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail.

¶22

5 . 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.

¶23

6 . The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶24

7 . The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant's appeal and warranted no interference with the order passed by the Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur and affirmed the said order.

¶25

8 . Upon careful consideration of the case's facts and circumstances, it appears that the applicant allegedly played a significant role in the incident, involving two other co-accused who are his close relatives (father and brother). Granting bail to

¶26

4

¶27

the applicant at this stage would result in lack of proper care and protection and would likely expose him to moral and psychological risks and compromise the interests of justice. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the reasoned findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court.

¶28

9 . Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is liable

¶29

to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶30

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶31

Sourabh P.

X v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyanarayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiva Manikpuri Alais Bittu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Sing @ Santosh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivam Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh