Abhimanyu Jena @ Rahul vs State Of Odisha And Another

G. Satapathy, J

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 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Children’s Court, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2025 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner-cum-CICL in connection with JJC Case No.43 of 2025 arising out of Nandipada PS Case No.21 of 2025 of the learned PMJJB, Keonjhar for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.65(1)/ 115(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of POCSO Act, on the main allegation of committing rape and penetrative sexual assault upon the victim.

Heard, Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP and perused the record. None appears for the informant/victim despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP.

A scrutiny of the impugned order itself reveals that the learned PO, Children’s Court has refused bail to the CICL by taking into consideration the proviso appended to Section 12 of the Act, but law is well settled that bail to CICL is the rule, but detention is an exception as provided under proviso appended to Section 12 of the Act. It is, therefore, very clear that the CICL shall be released on bail, unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the 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 Board as well as the PO, Children’s Court have observed that the release of the CICL would defeat the ends of justice, but there is no discussion of materials placed on record to arrive at a conclusion that the release of the CICL would defeat the ends of justice. Merely quoting the provision is not sufficient to refuse bail to the CICL, especially when it is the rule to grant bail to the CICL.

Further, the Social Investigation Report (SIR) as produced by the learned Addl. PP in this case reveals that the CICL is regretting for committing the offence and he is mentally depressed and the learned Probation Officer has contacted the staff of the place of safety where the CICL is staying and came to know that the behaviour of the CICL is good towards them. Further, no separate case for commission of offence has been reported against the CICL.

In such view of the matter and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record and bail being the rule to the CICL, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits, considers it proper to admit the CICL to bail.

In the result, the Criminal Revision stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned PO, Children’s Court is hereby set aside, so also the order passed by the Board refusing bail to the CICL. Consequently, the CICL be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper by the forum in seisin over the matter including one condition that the mother-guardian shall ensure that the CICL shall not contact the victim or her family members or the CICL shall not visit to the house of the victim.