REDACTED vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Page 1 of 4

CGHC010397532026 2026:CGHC:46533
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1422 of 2026
1 - Xyz Detail Of The Applicant Is Enclose With Separate Envelop
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. Lalpur, District
Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Singh Gumber, Advocate
For State/Non-Applicant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.11.2026
1) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated
01.10.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2026 by the learned
First Additional Session Judge / Juvenile’s Court Mungeli (CG)
dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant and upholding the order
Digitally signed
by JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.11.04
11:15:21
+0530
dated 16.09.2026 of the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board,
Mungeli rejecting the bail application of the applicant filed under
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 in connection with offence under Sections 309(4), 331(6),
310 and 311 of BNS.

Page 2 of 4
2) As per the prosecution story, on 23.07.2026, a complaint was lodged
by the complainant, Dharmin Sahu, at the concerned police station,
alleging that on the intervening night of 22.08.2026-23.08.2026, at
about 12:30 a.m., 3-4 unknown masked persons entered her house
and committed dacoity by looting gold and silver ornaments and cash
amounting to Rs. 8,000-9,000/- at knife point. On the basis of the
said complaint, the police registered the aforesaid offence. During
the course of investigation, the co-accused persons, along with the
present applicant, were taken into custody. On the memorandum
statement of the present applicant, one knife, one gold ornament and
cash amounting to Rs. 1,000/- were recovered on 25.07.2026.
3) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident and
has been kept in the Observation Home since 27.07.2026. He further
submits that the social investigation report submitted by the
Probation Officer does not contain any adverse remarks against the
applicant. He would further submit that the allegations regarding
commission of dacoity are primarily against the other co-accused
persons and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and the charge-
sheet has already been filed. He, therefore, prays for allowing the
criminal revision.
4) On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the arguments
and submits that the present applicant was involved in the
commission of the alleged offence along with the co-accused
persons. He further submits that there appear to be reasonable

Page 3 of 4
grounds to believe that the release of the applicant is likely to bring
him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger. Therefore, he prays for rejection of
the present criminal revision.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
as well as the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
6) In the present case, the applicant has been kept in the Observation
Home since 25.07.2026 and was aged about 16 years at the time of
the incident. It is alleged that the present applicant, along with the
other co-accused persons, committed dacoity and, at the instance of
the present applicant, one knife, one gold ornament and cash
amounting to Rs. 1,000/- were recovered. However, at the same
time, the social investigation report submitted by the Probation
Officer does not contain any adverse remarks against the applicant.
There appear to be no reasonable grounds to believe that the
release of the applicant is likely to bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological
danger.
7) Having considered the provisions contained in Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the
facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the fact
that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, I am inclined to allow
this criminal revision. Consequently, the order dated 01.10.2026
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2026 by the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli, and the order

Page 4 of 4
dated 16.09.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Mungeli, are hereby set aside .
8) Accordingly, the application for grant of bail to the applicant is
allowed. It is directed that on furnishing of a personal bond in sum of
Rs. 50,000/- by natural guardian of the applicant with one surety in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for
appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant
shall be given in custody of his natural guardian/ father.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Jyoti