Sk. Ibrahim & vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 9140 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9140 Ori
Judgement Date : 16 October, 2025

Orissa High Court

Sk. Ibrahim & vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 16 October, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   CRLREV NO.357 of 2025

   (An application U/S. 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 r/w Sec.
   102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
   Children) Act, 2015.

   Sk. Ibrahim &           ....                Petitioners
   another
                          -versus-
   State of Odisha          ....           Opposite Party

   For Petitioners :            Mr. A.K.Biswal, Advocate


   For Opposite       :          Mr. R.B.Mishra, Addl.PP
   Party

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:16.10.2025 (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

impugned order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the

learned Presiding Officer Children's Court, Mayurbhanj,

Baripada in BA No. 10 of 2025 confirming the order

passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Mayurbhan, Baripada in JC Case No. 44

of 2025 arising out of Udala PS Case No. 210 of 2025

refusing to grant bail to the revision-petitioner who are

child in conflict with law(CICLs) for commission of

offence punishable U/Ss. 296/351(2)/3(5) of BNS read

with Sec. 6 of POCSO Act on the main allegation of

committing penetrative sexual assault upon the victim

boy aged about 9 years.

2. Heard, Mr.Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned

counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr.R.B.Mishra,

learned Addl. PP and perused the record including the

Social Investigation Report of the child in conflict with

law-cum-petitioners as produced by the Addl. PP.

3. No doubt the learned Presiding Officer

Children's Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada has refused to

grant bail to the CICLs-cum-revision petitioners, but

Sec. 12 of the Act mandates that release of the CICL is

the rule, but proviso appended thereto, creates

exception for detention of CICL in Observation Home.

It is, therefore, very clear that the CICL shall be

released on bail, unless there appears reasonable

grounds for believing that release of the CICL 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. In this

case, the Social Investigation Report(SIR) of the CICLs

as produced by the learned Addl. PP reveals that the

CICIs are first time offender and they have committed

the alleged offence being unaware of the consequence

and the CICLs are regretting for committing the

offences and they are mentally disturbed. It is also

stated in the SIR that the CICLs belong to lower

middle class family and sociable. In the aforesaid

circumstance and after having considered the rival

submissions, since the bail application of the revision-

petitioners has to be considered in the light of the

factors as prescribed in Sec. 12 of the Act, this Court

feels that release of the revision-petitioners may be in

the interest of justice, more particularly when they are

aged about 14 & 15 years.

5. In the result, the criminal revision

stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance,

there is no order as to cost. Consequently, the

impugned order passed by the learned Presiding

Officer Children's Court, Mayurbhanj, Baripada is

hereby set aside, so also the order passed the

learned JJB, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in JC Case No. 44

of 2025 arising out of Udala PS Case No. 210 of 2025

in refusing bail to the CICLs and the revision-

petitioner-cum-CICLs be admitted to bail by the

forum/Court in seisin over the matter on such terms

and conditions as deems fit and proper with further

conditions that:-

(i) the father-guardian of each of the CICLs shall ensure that the CICLs shall not commit similar type of offence while on bail or shall not contact the victim boy or visit his house.

6. Before parting, this Court feels the

necessity to observe that the learned PO, Children's

Court has entertained the CICLs' bail application

which was registered as BA against the order passed

by learned JJB refusing to grant bail, but Sec.101(1)

of the Act provides appeal against such order and,

therefore, the application of the CICLs' should have

been registered as Criminal Appeal instead of BA. In

this context, the learned District & Sessions Judge,

Mayurbhanj is hereby requested to bestow his

personal attention in following the provisions of the

Act in registering the application of the CICL under