Bisal Uthansingh @ Bishal vs State Of Orissa Vs

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 19.02.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-PO-Children Court, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2025 confirming the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned JJB, Chatrapur in JGR Case No. 07 of 2025 arising out of Pattapur PS Case No. 39 of 2025 refusing to grant bail to the revision-petitioner who is a child in conflict with law-cum-CICL for commission of offence U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on the allegation of transporting 21Kgs. of Contraband Ganja on a motor cycle bearing Regd. No. OD20C-0383.

Heard, Mr.Azad Keshori Dash, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr.S.K.Rout, learned Addl. PP and perused the record.

Indisputably, bail to CICL can be refused only on the grounds enumerated in the proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act which prescribes that unless the release of the child is likely to bring into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, the CICL be released on bail with or without surety, but in this case, the learned Appellate Court has not applied the materials collected by the Investigating Agency in terms of the proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act to refuse bail to the CICL and thereby, the impugned order of the Appellate Court is unsustainable in the eye of law. It is no doubt true that the offence under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity is a serious offence and is against the society, but fact remains that if a statutes caste a duty on the Court to apply a particular provision in a particular way, then the same has to be done in that way irrespective of the fact that the offence is serious or heinous. In refusing bail to the revision-petitioner, the learned Appellate Court has observed that the action of any accused for a similar offence under NDPS Act cannot be viewed in isolation. On the other hand, the revision-petitioner has been detained in Observation Home since 16.01.2025 and no criminal antecedent has been reported against him, but the investigation has progressed a lot.

On a careful scrutiny of materials placed on record, this Court does not find any reasonable materials to believe that the release of the revision-petitioner 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 view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety and considering the case of the revision-petitioner on the face of the proviso appended to Sec. 12 of the Act, this Court considers it proper to admit the CICI-cum-petitioner to bail.

In the result, the criminal revision stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to cost. Ergo, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the order passed by the learned JJB, Chatrapur in refusing bail to the CICL are hereby set aside and consequently, the CICL is directed to be released on bail by the forum in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper.

...…………………………….