[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

(An Appeal U/S.101(5) Of The Juvenile ... vs State Of Orissa on 5 February, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   CRLA No.590 of 2025
   (An appeal U/S.101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
   Protection of Children's) Act, 2015 r/w Sec.12 of the
   Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children's) Act,
   2015).
   Ranjit Nahak                           ...          Appellant
                               -versus-
   State of Orissa                        ...        Respondent

   For Appellant                : Mr. A.N. Samantaray,
                                  Proxy Counsel

   For Respondent               : Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:05.02.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This criminal appeal U/S.101(5) of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015 (in short, "the Act") is directed against the

impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed in CT(S)

Case No.77 of 2022 by which the learned P.O.

Children's Court-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul has

refused to grant bail to the appellant-cum-CICL in

connection with Banarpal PS Case No.242 of 2021

arising out of CT(S) Case No.77 of 2022, for

commission of offence punishable U/Ss.376(D)/ 302/

201/ 34 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing

Gang Rape and murder of the deceased-victim.

2. In the course of hearing Mr. Anugraha

Narayan Samantaray, learned proxy counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel

for the appellant submits that not only the CICL has been

detained in custody beyond four and half years, but also

there is no material on record for the further detention of

the appellant and all the materials placed on record does

not incriminate the appellant in this case. Mr.

Samantaray, further submits that the case is based on

circumstantial evidence and SIR of the CICL-cum-

appellant does not have any adverse report against him

and, therefore, the appellant may kindly be granted bail.

2.1 On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Pradhan,

learned Addl. PP by relying upon the preliminary

assessment report of the CICL submits that not only

the CICL-cum-appellant has required physical capacity,

but also he has got mental capacity to commit such

offence and he(appellant) understands its consequence

and therefore, release of the appellant in a case of this

nature would be counterproductive and would be not in

the interest of justice. Accordingly, Mr. Pradhan prays

to dismiss the appeal by rejecting the appeal of the

appellant.

3. Bail to the CICL is the rule, but detention in

observation home is an exception. According, to Sec.12 of

the Act, it is mandated that when any person who is

apparently a child shall be released on bail, unless the

release of such child is likely to bring into association with

any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or

psychological danger to his release would defeat the ends

of justice. In this case, the appellant is in detention of

home since 26.07.2021, but the trial is yet to be

concluded, even after four and half years of the detention

of the CICL. Continuous detention of CICL has definite

adverse impact on his mental faculty, but the aim and

objective of the Act is for reformation and correction of

the CICL. The paramount consideration in a proceeding

for grant of bail to the CICL lies in the proviso to Sec.12

of the Act, wherein, there is stipulation that unless the

release of the CICL on bail would likely to bring him into

association with any known criminal or expose him to

moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release

would defeats the ends of justice, the CICL shall be

released on bail. In order to assess these conditions, this

Court false back on the SIR of the CICL, wherein the

Legal-cum-Probation Officer, DCPU, Angul in Paragraph-8

has inter alia observed as under:-

"The Child in Conflict with Law Ranjit Nahak got admission in Observation Home, Angul on 26.07.2021 by the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Angul. At the time of his admission into the institution he needs reformation and correction to amend his attitude, conduct and behavior for usable child of the society. Soon after the admission of the CICL in the institution, repeated counseling support has been provided. It is interacted with the superintendent, teacher and other staff of the observation home and nothing adverse is reported against him. They opined that his attitude and behavior has been improving gradually. Being impacted with other co-inmate and under influence of various correctional and reformation activities in the institution, a lot of changes like behavior towards elders, attitudes towards inmates and other positive quality is developed. Subsequently the CICL was shifted to place of safety Rourkela on 13.04.2022. it is also interacted with the Probation Officer and house mother of the Place of Safety, Rourkela. Nothing adverse is reported against the CICL. There is a positive opinion with regards to the conduct and attitude of the CICL. He was actively participated in the various activity of the institution, and secures

prizes. Now he appears to be a discipline boy and at the door step of the reformation and correction.

The CICL was a dropout student since 2019, after failed in the HSC Examination. Soon after his admission into the institution, focus has been given for his re-enrolment in the education. It is ensured for appearing HSC Examination. Accordingly, he got admission under State Open School Certificate Examination during the Academic Sessions 2024-25 in SIOS District Center Angul Government High School. He appeared HSC Examination in 2025 and secured Grade-B2 with 60% of Marks. He is under the mainstream, of education and he intends continue his higher education. Hence lenient view may kindly be taken in favor of the CICL in order to restore to the family."

4. A studied scrutiny of the aforesaid

recommendation would go to reveal that no adverse

situation or report has come against the CICL, even he

was shifted to Place of safety Rourkela on 13.04.2022

and his conduct does not incriminate him. Besides,

there is no direct evidence available against the CICL-

cum-appellant, but the case is based on circumstantial

evidence, however, the trial is yet to be concluded even

after such length of time. Long detention would

definitely impede the right to speedy trial of the CICL

and in this case, the appellant has been detained in

custody for a petty long period.