Orissa High Court
Munu @ Subhash @ vs State Of Odisha And ... Opposite Parties on 19 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.17 of 2025
(An application U/S. 102 of Juvenile Justice Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2015.)
Munu @ Subhash @ ... Petitioner
Sumanta Sagar Nayak
-versus-
State of Odisha and ... Opposite Parties
another
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Behera, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:19.02.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against the
impugned order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children's
Court, Nayagarh in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2024
refusing the grant of bail to the Petitioner-cum-Child in
Conflict with Law (in short, "CICL") in an appeal under
Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (in short, "the Act").
2. Facts in precise are that on the allegation of
molesting the victim, the CICL was implicated in
Chandpur P.S. Case No. 207 of 2023 and accordingly,
he faced an inquiry before the JJB, Nayagarh in JC
No.31 of 2023 in which the CICL was found to have
committed the offences and ordered to be kept in a
place of safety by the impugned judgment dated
08.10.2024 passed by the learned JJB, Nayagarh.
Accordingly, the CICL carried an appeal to the
Appellate Court i.e. Children's Court, Nayagarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2024 in which the prayer for
bail of the CICL was turned down. Being aggrieved
with such order, the CICL as a Petitioner has preferred
the present revision before this Court.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Jayadeba
Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however,
submits that although the Petitioner has been directed
to be kept in a place of safety for one year with
reformative services including education, skill,
development, counseling behavior modification
therapy and psychiatric support with care plan, but the
learned Appellate Court without appreciating the
matter in proper perspective and without applying the
provision of law has mechanically passed the
impugned order in the appeal refusing to grant bail to
the Petitioner. Mr. Behera, accordingly prays to grant
bail to the CICL-cum-Petitioner on any condition.
On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, however, strongly
opposes the prayer of the CICL-cum-Petitioner by
contending inter alia that the learned Appellate Court
has rightly assessed the provision of the law by
refusing bail to the Petitioner and, therefore, the
impugned order needs no interference.
4. After having considered the rival submission
upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute that
grant or refusal of bail to a CICL is required to be
governed by Section 12 of the Act which provides that
unless the release of the CICL on bail would bring him
into association with any known criminal or expose
him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his
release would defeat the ends of justice, bail should
ordinarily be granted to the CICL. At the same time,
the merit of the case has hardly any bearing for grant
or refusal of bail to the CICL, rather it has to be seen
as to whether the release of the Petitioner would bring
him into association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would defeat the
ends of justice. Upon perusal of the Social
Investigation Report (SIR), the learned Appellate
Court, however, finding the parents of the CICL to be
less educated and giving less time to children with
callous attitude regarding discipline, refused bail to the
CICL. In essence, the impugned order reveals about
the parental neglect as a ground for refusal of bail to
the CICL, but the main factor that is required to be
considered for grant or refusal of bail to the CICL has
of course not been considered by the learned Appellate
Court in refusing bail to the Petitioner, inasmuch as
bail can be refused to the CICL only on the reasonable
grounds for believing that release of the CICL is likely
to bring him into association with any known criminal
or expose him to moral, physical or psychological
danger or his release would defeat the ends of the
justice. Judging the impugned order on the bedrock of
provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act, there is no discussion
with regard to the ingredients for refusal of bail to the
CICL and, therefore, the impugned order being
unsustainable in the eye of law is liable to be set
aside.
5. In the result, the criminal revision instituted
by the CICL stands allowed and the impugned order
refusing to grant bail to the CICL-Petitioner stands set
aside. Consequently, the Petitioner is directed to be
released on bail on such terms and conditions as
deems fit and proper by the JJB, Nayagarh and submit
the record together with documents for release of the
CICL on bail to the Children's Court, Nayagarh.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSAOrissa High Court, Cuttack,
Date: 21-Feb-2025 18:38:08 th
Dated the 19 day of February, 2025/Jina
