O S (Minor) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 . The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Children Court F.T.C. (POCSO), Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Criminal Appeal Case No.163/2025 upholding the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,

¶15

HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.03 14:18:27 +0530

¶16

2

¶17

Rajanandgaon (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 368/2025 registered at Police Station Tumdibod, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(2) of BNSS and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act & Sections 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶18

2 . The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report to the effect that on 07.08.2025, at about 7:30 pm, in the village Sivnikhurd, near the passenger waiting area behind Devnath mobile shop, after participating in the Mahakal rally, during the distribution of prasad, the deceased Yuvraj Banjare, was attacked by the appellant along with five other co-accused/juveniles. They assaulted him with their hands, fists, and a sharp weapon like a knife, inflicting a wound to his stomach. The victim was taken to the hospital for treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctor. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant.

¶19

3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is in observation home since 07.08.2025. There is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known

¶20

3

¶21

criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Five other co-accused/juveniles have already been granted bail by the trial Court. Both the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail of the applicant. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶22

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant along with the other five juvenile committed the serious offence of murder and the applicant inflicted the 6 stabbed injury upon the deceased by means of a knife. If the applicant is released on bail, there is a possibility that he will again come into the company of criminals. Therefore, looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on bail.

¶23

5 . The elder brother of the victim/deceased appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised his objection in granting bail to the applicant.

¶24

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

¶25

4

¶26

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.

¶27

7 . The bail application of the applicant has been 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.

¶28

8 . By the Additional Sessions Court (FTC), Rajnandgaon, the appeal of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicant not only committed a heinous offence, but has also committed the said crime while under the care of his parents and after dropping out of school. This indicates that the juvenile is beyond the control of his parents/guardians, and granting him bail could lead to his re-offending and potentially undergoing dangerous changes in his moral and psychological outlook due to associating with his friends. This could ultimately defeat the very purpose of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

¶29

9 . Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the report of the probation officer that the applicant has lack of guidance and has come in contact with anti-social persons,

¶30

5

¶31

looking to the overall situation of the crime, it is found that if the applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him in moral and psychological danger and the object of justice would be defeated.

¶32

10. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 90/2026 has no merits; and is hereby dismissed .

¶33

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶34

H.L. Sahu

O S (Minor) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O S (Minor) 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

Roshan Minj @ Deep Roshan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Oddi @ Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ayub Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnath Bhagat Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Shivnarayan Singh Shyamle Vs State of Chhattisgarh