Orissa High Court
Situ @ Chiranjit vs State Of Odisha on 2 April, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.6 of 2025
(An application U/S. 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care
and Protection of Childrens' Act, 2015).
Situ @ Chiranjit .... Petitioner
Behera
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. D.K.Sahoo, Advocate
For : Mr. R.B.Mishra, Addl.PP
Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.04.2025 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal revision U/S. 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 (in short "the Act") is directed against the
judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal
No.08 of 2024 confirming the order dated 04.09.2024
passed by the learned JJB, Keonjhar in JJC Case No.
73 of 2023 refusing to grant bail to the petitioner-
cum-CICL in an application U/S. 12 of the Act.
2. The allegation against the petitioner-
cum-CICL is for committing rape upon a minor girl
aged about seven years and accordingly Baria PS
Case No. 139 of 2023 has been registered against the
petitioner-cum-CICL and his family members for
commission of offence U/Ss. 376-AB/506/34 of IPC
read with Sec. 4(2) of POCSO Act. The police on due
investigation has submitted charge sheet against the
CICL for commission of offences U/Ss. 376-AB of
IPC/4(2) of POCSO Act and against his family
members for offences U/Ss.294/506/34 of IPC.
3. Heard, Mr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.B.Mishra,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the
record including the Social Investigation Report of the
CICL, but none appears for the victim/informant
despite being duly appeared through a counsel.
4. Admittedly, the prosecution after
availing sufficient opportunity has not been able to
produce the Social Background Report of the CICL,
but only come up with the Social Investigation Report
in which the LPO has observed that the petitioner
(CICL) wants to continue his study and his behavior
with other inmates of the Observation Home is good.
Further, the learned Appellate Court although has
quoted the provision of Sec. 12 of the Act, but it has
not discussed the grounds as enumerated therein in
the proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act to refuse bail to the
revision-petitioner. It, however, primafacie appears
that the learned Appellate Court has taken into
consideration the allegation against the CICL while
refusing bail to him, although it has taken into
consideration the SIR to say that the causative factor
of the CICL for such offence is peer group influence
and the alleged act of CICL shows clear criminal
tendencies in him and thereby, if the CICL is released
from Observation Home and sent back to home, he
will not only be exposed to moral, physical and
psychological danger, but also the interest of justice
will be defeated.
5. Mere reproducing the words as
contemplated in proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act is not
sufficient to refuse bail, but the real implication of
such word has to be understood and considered in
the light of the materials produced by the
Investigating Agency. In this case, there is of course
no discussion as to how the release of CICL would
bring him into association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological
danger and as to how the interest of justice will be
defeated. Thus, it appears to this Court that the
learned Appellate Court has incorrectly appreciated
the materials on record to confirm the order of the
learned JJB while refusing bail to the CICL. It is also
found that the CICL has been detained in Observation
Home since 07.11.2023 and investigation has already
been completed and trial has already commenced.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance,
especially when the proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act has
not been properly applied and appreciated by the
learned Appellate Court in refusing bail to the CICL
and the CICL having detained in Observation Home
for a substantial period, this Court notwithstanding to
the objection raised by the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor, considers it in the interest of justice to
extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner-cum-CICL
because nothing has been placed on record to say
that the release of CICL would bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger.
7. In the result, the criminal revision
stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance,
there is no order as to cost. Ergo, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as
well as the order passed by the learned JJB, Keonjhar
in refusing bail to the CICL are hereby set aside and
consequently, the CICL is directed to be released on
bail by the forum in seisin over the matter on such
terms and conditions as deems fit and proper
including one condition that the father/guardian of
the CICL would ensure that the CICL shall not contact
or visit the victim till disposal of the case.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 2nd April, 2025/Kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-Apr-2025 18:49:36
