Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.07.15
13:50:08 +0530
2025:CGHC:32420
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 821 of 2024
1 - ABC Nil
2 - DEF Nil
.. Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station- Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Deepak Choubey, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey,
Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
11/07/2025
1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile
2
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has
been preferred against the impugned order dated
21.06.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge
(Atrocity), Additional Charge Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC) and Children Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal
Appeal No.92/2024 upholding the order dated 15.05.2024
passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice
Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the
applicant in connection with Crime No.16/2024 registered
at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 R/w Section
34 of IPC was rejected.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.11.2020, the
complainant, Ishwar Kewart, lodged a missing person
report at Police Outpost Malhar stating that on 12.11.2020,
at around 9:00 PM, his son, Vikas Kewart, aged 19 years,
had left the house and did not return. In October 2023, a
boy named Bundru from Malhar informed that Vikas
Kewart had been murdered by Ajay Bhanu along with other
juveniles in conflict with law, and that his body had been
buried near Hathni Pond in a field. Based on the said
information provided by the complainant, the police at
Outpost Malhar interrogated the suspects, who confessed
to the commission of the offence. Thereafter, on
3
08.01.2024, in the presence of Tehsildar Masturi,
excavation was carried out in the field of Ramji Patel using
a JCB machine as per the information given by Ajay Bhanu
and the juveniles in conflict with law, during which a
human skeleton was recovered. Upon seeing the clothes,
bracelet, and belt found with the skeleton, the complainant
identified the remains as those of his son, whereupon a
Panchnama was prepared and the skeleton was sent for
medical post-mortem examination. Consequently, an
offence was registered against Ajay Bhanu and three
juveniles in conflict with law. Upon finding sufficient
evidence against them, the juveniles were apprehended and
sent to the Juvenile Observation Home.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated.
The applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedent. There is no
likelihood of their release would bring them into association
with any known criminal or expose them 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 applicants may be released
on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
the prayer for grant of bail and submits that applicant no.1
4
had 1 criminal antecedent of same nature. Bundru has
clearly stated against the applicants. There was 1 major co-
accused involved in the crime in question and he is also in
jail. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime committed by
the applicants, at this stage, they may not be released on
bail.
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.
6. The bail application of the applicants were rejected by the
Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that in case the
applicants are released on bail it is likely to bring them into
association with known criminals or expose the child to
moral, physical or psychological danger.
7. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant’s appeal
warranted no interference with the order passed by the
Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari and affirmed the
5
said order.
8. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of
the case, I find that applicant no. 1 has a criminal
antecedent of the same nature and there is no other report
against them in the social status report. A major co-
accused has also been involved with the applicants in this
incident. Further, the trial is going on, I conclude that
granting bail to the applicants would likely expose them 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.
9. Consequently, this Revision has no merit and the same is
liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
10. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and
to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as
possible.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham