JUVENILE (IN CONFLICT WITH LAW) vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010364822026 2026:CGHC:45601
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No.1279 of 2026
1 - Juvenile (In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And His
Legal Guardian Is Mentioned In Closed Envelope)
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Singhoda
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
CRR No.1289 of 2026
1 - Juvenile (In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And His
Legal Guardian Is Mentioned In Closed Envelope).
Applicant (s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Singhoda
District Mahasamund (C.G.)
Respondent(s)

For Applicant (s) : Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, PL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
28/10/2026
Digitally
signed
by R
NIRALA

2
1. These criminal revisions have been preferred by the
applicants/juveniles under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth ‘referred
as ‘JJ Act’) challenging the order dated 22.08.2026 passed by the
learned Children Court/Additional Session Judge (Fast Tract
Court), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.H-93/2026,
whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants/juveniles has
been rejected upholding the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by
the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Mahasamund (C.G.) in Crime No.70/2026, by which the bail
application of the applicants/juveniles under Section 12 of the JJ
Act was rejected.
2. The allegation against the applicants/juveniles is that the
applicants/juveniles along with 3 other adult accused persons
were transporting contraband substance ganja in scorpio vehicle
and total 9 kg ganja was seized from joint possession of all 5
accused persons. Thereafter an FIR was lodged against the
applicants and other co-accused persons at the Police Station
Singhoda vide Crime No.70/2026 for the offence punishable
under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. After investigation,
charge sheet was filed against the applicants for the same
offence before the JJB, Mahasamund, which is pending
consideration.
3. The bail application filed by the applicants/juveniles under
Section 12 of the JJ Act was rejected by the Juvenile Justice

3
Board, Mahasamund vide order dated 03.08.2026 and thereafter
the appeal preferred by them has also been rejected vide
impugned order dated 22.08.2026 (Annexure-A/1) by the learned
Children Court/Additional Session Judge (Fast Tract Court),
Mahasamund (C.G.). Hence this criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants/juveniles would submit that
the applicants are juvenile and they have been falsely implicated
in the crime in question and this is the first conflict with law of the
applicants/juveniles and social status report of one of the
applicants/juveniles is not negative, whereas the report of
another applicant/juvenile has not been received. He further
submits that the applicants/juveniles were not aware about the
transportation of ganja, rather they have been taken by the adult
accused persons at the behest of roaming. He further submits
that the applicants/juveniles are in observation home since
30.06.2026, charge sheet has already been filed and conclusion
of trial may take long time, as such keeping applicants/juveniles
for further period in the observation home may change their
conduct and behavior, hence it is prayed that the orders passed
by the learned Appellate Court as well as learned Juvenile
Justice Board be set aside and the applicants/juveniles be
enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail applications
of the applicants/juveniles, however he submits that this is the

4
first conflict with law of the applicants/juveniles and social status
report of one of the applicants/juveniles is not negative, though it
has been mentioned therein that he is in contact with persons
having criminal background, whereas the social status report of
another applicant/juvenile has not been received
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including case diary as well as social status
report.
7. As contended by learned State counsel, this is the first conflict
with law of the applicants/juveniles and social status report of one
of the applicants/juveniles, aged about 14 years, is not negative,
whereas the report of another applicant/juvenile has not been
received, the applicants/juveniles are in observation home since
30.06.2026 and nothing has been brought by the prosecution to
hold that if the applicants/juveniles are released on bail, then
their release will likely to bring them into association with any
known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or their release would defeat the ends of
justice.
8. Having considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter,
particularly the duration of custody of applicants/juveniles in the
observation home and for the fact that the charge sheet has
already been filed, therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the
instant revisions.

5
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.08.2026 passed by the
learned Children Court/Additional Session Judge (Fast Tract
Court), Mahasamund (C.G.) and the order dated 03.08.2026
passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Mahasamund (C.G.) are hereby set aside.
10. It is directed that if the mother or father of the applicants/juveniles
furnishes their own bail bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
Juvenile Justice Board for appearance of the applicants/juveniles
before it, as and when directed by it, the applicants/juveniles
shall be released into the custody of their parents.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Nirala