Kashinath Sahu & Others vs State Of Odisha

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 impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned PO Children’s Court, Rayagada in BA No. 10 of 2025 arising out of Padampur PS Case No. 61 of 2025 refusing to grant bail to Child-in-Conflict with law (CICLs), who are represented by their guardians in this revision for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 126(2)/ 132/ 121(1)/ 296/ 351(3)/324(4)/ 109(1)/ 190 of BNS, on the main allegation of pelting stone at the informant and the Police party who had come to the village for maintaining law and order situation, in which one person had died being assaulted by some villagers suspecting him to have been practicing sorcery.

Heard, Mr.Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP and perused the record, so also the copy of the Social Investigation Report as produced by learned Addl. PP.

The CICLs who have been represented by their guardians in this revision have in fact moved an application before the learned PO Children’s Court, Rayagada seeking for grant of bail, but the PO Children’s Court, Rayagada had refused to grant bail to them on the ground that the Social Background Report(SBR) reveals that the CICLs are under the influence of antisocial of their locality and thereby, they being covered under the proviso of Sec. 12 of the Act, however, no discussion has in fact being made by the learned PO Children’s Court in the impugned order as to how the release of the CICLs would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or their release would defect the ends of justice. Merely quoting the provisions of law without any discussion with reference to any materials placed on record to refuse bail to CICLs would not be the spirit of law. Bail to CICLs is in fact the rule, but their detention in Observation Home is an exception. Further, the SIR produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor reveals that there is no negative antecedent found against any of the CICLs who are continuing their education. Besides, bail should not be refused to CICL, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that his release would bring him to 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, on careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, this Court does not find any such thing against the CICLs who have been represented by their guardian in this revision application. In such view of the matter and taking into consideration all the materials placed on record cumulatively, this Court without expressing any opinion on merit considers it proper to admit the CICLs to bail.

Hence, the criminal revision stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to cost. Accordingly, the impugned order in refusing bail to the CICLs is hereby set aside and consequently, the CICLs named in this revision be allowed to go on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper.

Before parting, this Court feels the necessity to observe that this revision has in fact being preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the PO Children’s Court, Rayagada in BA provision of Sec.101 of the Act makes it very clear that all the orders passed by the Board are appealable one and the order passed by the PO Children’s Court in original side would be appealable U/S.101(5) of the Act and the order passed by the Children’s Court, in appeal against the order of the Board is revisable one in terms of Sec. 102 of the Act, however, the nomenclature will not matter and would not debar this Court for passing any order. In the context of registering appeal against the order of the Board, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rayagada is hereby requested to bestow his personal attention in following the provisions of the Act.