Dismissed¶17

A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2026CRR/1503/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile bail denial upheld; Section 12 JJ Act 2015 proviso 'defeat the ends of justice'; gravity and nature of offence relevant (with Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 5 SCC 201); Section 102 JJ Act revision dismissed; Juvenile Justice Board Dhamtari order 15.10.2025; Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, Criminal Appeal No. 64/2025, judgment 31.10.2025; alleged killing of Vikas Dhruv by sharp weapon on 06.06.2025 at Dhamtari; private defence unsupported by case diary; adverse Social Investigation Report; observation home; applicant aged about 16 at time of offence; NAFR; 2026:CGHC:8060.

What did the court decide?

None — the applicant's release on bail was not secured; the revision was rejected. ¶17

A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the applicant's release on bail was not secured; the revision was rejected.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, brought against the Sessions-court appeal judgment (Criminal Appeal No. 64/2025, judgment dated 31.10.2025) that rejected the juvenile applicant's bail application, should be allowed so as to secure his release on bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The learned Trial Court passed a reasoned and well-considered order after appreciating the available material; no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 is not an absolute right: the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime committed are relevant considerations, and bail may be denied where release would defeat the 'ends of justice' under the proviso to Section 12(1).

¶7

Key takeaways

Reliance placed on Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 5 SCC 201: even under the beneficial JJ legislation, the gravity of the offence and nature of the crime cannot be ignored in deciding juvenile bail.ratio¶8
Releasing the appellant/juvenile at this stage would not be in his best interest and may defeat the ends of justice, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, the time and place of occurrence, and the material collected during investigation.ratio¶13
The plea that the act was committed in private defence is not supported by the material collected during investigation; no circumstance in the case diary or accompanying documents prima facie establishes exercise of the right of private defence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), CRR No. 1503 of 2025 (NAFR; neutral ID 2026:CGHC:8060), single judge Arvind Kumar Verma, J. — CAV judgment pronounced 13.02.2026 (reserved 11.12.2025). Criminal revision under s.102, JJ Act 2015 by a juvenile in conflict with law (through his mother as natural guardian) against the judgment dated 31.10.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2025, which had upheld the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari's order dated 15.10.2025 rejecting his bail application. Prosecution case: on 06.06.2025 (about 11:15 PM) at Danipara Ward, Dhamtari, the juvenile, with co-accused Satish and another juvenile, allegedly abused, threatened and assaulted Vikas Dhruv with a sharp weapon, inflicting a fatal abdominal injury; weapon and clothes seized during investigation. Holding: bail under s.12 JJ Act is not a juvenile's absolute right; per the proviso to s.12(1), the gravity and nature of the offence are relevant to the 'defeat the ends of justice' ground (relying on Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 5 SCC 201). Private-defence plea unsupported by case-diary material; Social Investigation Report showed adverse influence, lack of supervision and risk of association with undesirable elements; applicant aged about 16 years at the time of the offence; impugned order free of illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. Revision dismissed; bail denied.

2026:CGHC:8060

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Judgment Reserved On: 11.12.2025

¶6

Judgment Pronounced On:13.02.2026

¶7

CRR No. 1503 of 2025

¶8

A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) Through - Natural Guardian-MotherA.M., R/o A. R. Y. (Details Attached In Separate Envelop With The Memo Of Revision.) ... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - City- Kotwali, Dhamtari, DistrictDhamtari (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

C A V Judgment

¶15

The applicant has preferred the present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 against the judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2025

¶16

¶17

wherein the bail application of the present applicant was rejected.

¶18

As per the case of the prosecution, on 06.06.2025, at about 11:15 PM, in Danipara Ward, Dhamtari, in front of the house of complainant Anusuiya Bai Dhruv, the juvenile/appellant, along with co-accused Satish and another juvenile in conflict with law, abused Vikas Dhruv, the son of the complainant, in filthy language. Upon objecting to such abuse, the juvenile/appellant, along with the co-accused, threatened Vikas Dhruv with death and assaulted him with fists and kicks. Thereafter, with the intention to kill, the juvenile/appellant assaulted Vikas Dhruv with a sharp weapon, causing an injury to his abdomen, due to which Vikas Dhruv’s intestines came out, resulting in his death. The application submitted by the guardian of the juvenile seeking bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, by order dated 15.10.2025, being aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed before this Hon’ble Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned court below has erred in law and facts while passing the impugned judgment. It failed to consider that keeping the juvenile/applicant in custody would expose him to criminal influence and psychological harm, thereby defeating the ends of justice. The court also ignored binding precedents of the Hon’ble High Court, including Vikki Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ankit Upadhayay @ Chotu & Others vs. State of C.G. Further, the Social Status Report was wrongly appreciated. The applicant

¶20

¶21

does not consume liquor or intoxicants, contrary to the court’s observation. The report itself indicates that the deceased was the aggressor and attacked the applicant first, causing injuries to the applicant which required stitches. The applicant was not carrying a knife, and the incident occurred in self-defence, entitling him to bail. The court also failed to appreciate that criminal law cannot be based on mere probability of future offences. The applicant belongs to a poor family with no criminal antecedents, and continued detention would adversely affect his mental well-being during his stay in the observation home. Moreover, Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act presumes a child to be innocent of criminal intent up to the age of 18 years. He prays that the applicant is in captivity since 07.06.2025 therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a categorical finding recorded by learned Court below with regard to the seriousness of the offence and also given a finding that in the interest of justice, the applicants juvenile-conflict-with-law shall not be released on bail. It is further submitted that these findings are based on proper assessment of the material placed before it and therefore the finding recorded does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Learned State counsel had apprised this Court about the conduct of the applicants/accused and submits that looking to the gravity of the

¶23

¶24

offence committed by the applicants/accused, they are not entitled to be released on bail and this revision deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered their rival submissions.

¶26

Section 12 of the Act, 2015 deals with grant of bail to a juvenile and provides as to under what parameters, the bail can be considered. In assessing the merit of rival submissions, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to Section 12 of the Act, 2015:

¶27

“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.—(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, 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:

¶28

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the

¶29

¶30

said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

¶31

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

¶32

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

¶33

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.”

¶34

As per learned counsel for the applicant, considering the conduct of the applicant, he is entitled to be released on bail irrespective of the gravity of offence committed, but in the opinion of this Court

¶35

¶36

the consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile delinquents though is entirely different than that of normal consideration of granting bail but still the Court has to consider whether their release would defeat the ‘ends of justice’. The words ‘ends of justice’ should be confined to the fact which shows that grant of bail itself is likely to a result in injustice and as per the exception provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015 if the Court finds that release would defeat the ‘ends of justice’ then bail can be denied to a juvenile. Although, various High Courts in most of the cases while dealing with the provisions of grant of bail as per Section 12 of the Act, 2015 have adopted an approach that a juvenile can be considered to be released on bail irrespective of gravity of offence but I am not convinced that the bail can be claimed by a juvenile as a matter of right and can be granted to the juvenile without considering the gravity of offence and nature of crime committed by him. As per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, it is clear that there was no intent of the legislature to consider the grant of bail to a juvenile as his absolute right and that is why it carved out an exception under which bail can be denied, otherwise there was no occasion to attach proviso with Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015. My view gets strength by the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201 in which the Supreme Court in paragraphs-3 and 23 of its judgment has observed as under:

¶37

¶38

“3. The Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a Special Court for holding trial of children/juveniles by the Juvenile Court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a Juvenile Court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held?

¶39

XXXX XXXX XXXX 23. Hence, while the courts must be sensitive in dealing with the juvenile who is involved in cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang rape, murder and host of other offences, the accused cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting to prove himself as a minor when the documentary evidence to prove his minority gives rise to a reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority. Under such circumstance, the medical evidence based on scientific investigation will have to be given due weight and precedence over the evidence based on school

¶40

¶41

administration records which give rise to hypothesis and speculation about the age of the accused. The matter however would stand on a different footing if the academic certificates and school records are alleged to have been withheld deliberately with ulterior motive and authenticity of the medical evidence is under challenge by the prosecution.”

¶42

However, in the case of Om Prakash (supra), there was some dispute with regard to the age of the accused but it is clearly observed by the Supreme Court while considering the crime committed by the juvenile and also considering the beneficial legislation i.e Act, 2015, has observed that the gravity of offence and nature of crime cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), while considering the provisions of Section12(1) of the Act, 2015 has observed as under:-

¶43

“30. Thus, it is no ultimate rule that a juvenile below the age of 16 years has to be granted bail and can be denied the privilege only on the first two of the grounds mentioned in the proviso, that is to say, likelihood of the juvenile on release being likely to be brought in association with any known criminal or in consequence of being released exposure of the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger. It can be equally

¶44

¶45

refused on the ground that releasing a juvenile, that includes a juvenile below 16 years would “defeat the ends of justice.” In the opinion of this Court the words “defeat the ends of justice” employed in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act postulate as one of the relevant consideration, the nature and gravity of the offence though not the only consideration in applying the aforesaid part of the dis entitling legislative edict. Other factors such as the specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child would also be relevant that are spoken of under Section 18 of the Act.”

¶46

This case involves sensitive allegations of sexual assault on a child below the age of 5 invoking the provisions of the JJ Act and the POCSO Act aimed at safeguarding children while balancing the rights and status of the juvenile accused under the law. Such unnatural acts shatter societal trust and innocence demanding stringent denial of bail to shield the vulnerable child from influence and uphold justice’s moral imperative against predation on the defenseless.

¶47

In the present case also from the record it appears that, as per the

¶48

¶49

prosecution case, the incident occurred at night and the appellant/juvenile is alleged to have played a primary and active role in the occurrence, wherein a sharp-edged weapon was used causing serious injuries that ultimately resulted in the death of the victim. The weapon used in the incident and the clothes worn at the relevant time were seized during investigation.

¶50

The plea taken on behalf of the appellant/juvenile that the act was committed in private defence is not supported by the material collected during investigation. No circumstance is reflected from the case diary or accompanying documents which prima facie establishes that the occurrence took place in exercise of the right of private defence.

¶51

The Social Investigation Report further indicates that the appellant/juvenile was under adverse influence, lacked proper supervision, and there exists a likelihood of his coming into association with undesirable elements if released at this stage. The report also notes the necessity of supervision and corrective measures.

¶52

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, the time and place of occurrence, and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the view that releasing the appellant/juvenile at this stage would not be in his best interest and may also defeat the ends of justice.

¶53

The learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned and wellconsidered order after appreciating the available material. No

¶54

¶55

illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶56

The revisional powers under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act circumscribe interference absence jurisdictional error; here, JJB and Sessions Court rightly prioritized child protection over routine bail for henious offence of murder. Philosophical reflection reveals such acts as profound societal ruptures-violating the innate dignity and inviolabilities of childhood, echoing Kantian imperatives against treating humans as means, and underscoring eudemonia as communal virtue demanding collective vigilance to restore moral order.

¶57

As a general parlance, bail is the rule in the case of a juvenile and places the burden for denying the bail on the prosecution to show that on the parameters specified in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act, 2015, bail should be denied to a juvenile. But here in this case, I am of the opinion that since at the time of committing the offence, the age of the applicant was about 16 years and if he is released on bail the expression defeat the ‘ends of justice’ would frustrate the confidence as repose for the society. No doubt, the Juvenile Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reformation of the juvenile/child in conflict with law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser. Thus, while considering the room for granting the bail to a juvenile, the Court has to consider the surrounding facts and circumstances. The alleged act of the applicant/accused itself

¶58

¶59

shakes the conscience of the society. The offence is obviously heinous in nature and if he is released on bail, it would defeat the ‘ends of justice’.

¶60

In view of the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present revision filed under Section 102 of the Act, 2015 does not deserve to be allowed and accordingly, the same stands

rejected .

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

Madhurima

A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Champa Devi Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhongu Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Peshwani @ Shiv Kukreja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajim Bai Alias Rajin Mahilange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Tonde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Natwar Lal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh