Orissa High Court
R/W 53 Of Juvenile Justice (Care & ... vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 7 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.745 of 2024
(An application under Section 442 r/w 438 BNSs 2023
R/w 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children
Act)
Sunil Pradhan ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. B.Mahapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K.Apat, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.02.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against
the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal
Appeal No. 13 of 2024 confirming the order dated
25.10.2024 passed by the learned JJB, Keonjhar in JJC
No. 53 of 2024 refusing to grant bail to the petitioner,
in an appeal U/S. 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care &
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ( in short, "the Act").
2. Initially, the present revision-petitioner has
preferred an application before the learned JJB for grant
of bail in connection with Patna PS Case No. 273 of 2024
corresponding to JJC No. 53 of 2024 pending before the
learned JJB, Keonjhar for commission of offence
punishable U/Ss. 304(2)/112(2) of BNS on the allegation
of snatching away of Rs.17,000/- from the informant
and the learned JJB has rejected such application of the
petitioner who is the Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) in
this case.
3. Heard Mr. Bibekananda Mahapatra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Apat, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
4. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order
passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court would go to
indicate that the background of the revision-petitioner
has in fact weighed in the mind of such Court in
confirming the order of learned JJB and refusing bail to
the revision-petitioner, but fact remains that the
revision-petitioner has been detained in Observation
Home since 07.08.2024. It, however, appears from the
impugned order that the SIR of the CICL reveals the
reason for commission of offence due to parental neglect
and peer group influence, but the CICL is aged about 17
years right now and he, thereby, needs parental care
and guidance. Merely because there is allegation against
the petitioner for committing theft would not be
sufficient to give rise to any reasonable apprehension
that release of the petitioner on bail would bring him
into association with any known criminal or expose him
into moral, physical and psychological danger, provided
he is kept under the guidance of the parents. Further,
the name of the CICL does not figure out in the FIR and
his implication in this case is not on the basis of any
direct evidence.
5. True it is that the only stipulation for
refusal of bail as provided in Sec. 12 of the Act relates to
existence of reasonable grounds for believing that
release of CICL is likely to bring him into association
with any known criminal or expose him into moral,
physical and psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice. Except for stating the
involvement of the CICL in several offences of similar
nature, nothing has been stated in the impugned order
about his involvement in any particular case, no matter
the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has brought to the
notice of the Court about the involvement of the
petitioner in another two cases, but fact remains that
the allegation as made therein in such cases has not
been specifically brought to the notice of the Court that
he was associated with any known criminal and this
Court, therefore, by taking into consideration the
detention of the petitioner in Observation Home and that
too, for a trivial offences like 304(2)/112(2) of BNS
keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove
considers it in the interest of justice to order for release
of the petitioner on bail by duly applying the provision of
Sec. 12 of the Act in proper perspective.
6. Hence, the criminal revision stands
allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
02.12.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2024 and the
order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned JJB,
Keonjhar in JJC No. 53 of 2024 are hereby set aside.
Ergo, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on
such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the
learned JJB, Keonjhar in seisin of the case.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 7th day of February, 2025/kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 08-Feb-2025 12:44:56
