Omm Prakash Nayak 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 impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learend Childrens’ Court, Bhadrak in JGR Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025 confirming the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned PMJJB, Bhadrak in JGR Case No.10 of 2025 refusing to grant bail to the revision-petitioner in connection with Naikanidihi P.S. Case No.47 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 376(2)(n)/ 376(3) of IPC r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the main allegation of committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim.

Heard, Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, Mr. Rabi Narayan Panda, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. PP in the matter, who also filed the copy of the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Social Background Report (SBR) for perusal of the record.

In this criminal revision, the petitioner has not only assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned PMJJB, Bhadrak, but also has sought for bail to the petitioner-cum-Child in Conflict with Law (CICL). Bail to the CICL can be refused, if there exists reasonable grounds to believe that release of the CICL would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, but in this case, the SIR of the CICL reveals that the child is repenting and his conduct is good in the observation home. However, the learned Appellate Court although has discussed the provision of Section 12 of the Act, but it has not applied the said provision by discussing the materials on record. Nowhere in the impugned order, the past conduct of the CICL has been stated or discussed. It is also not found from the record that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that there exists reasonable ground to believe that release of the petitioner-CICL would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger. It is also not in dispute that the CICL has been detained in custody since 05.03.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted in the meantime. The cardinal rule of bail jurisprudence as prescribed in the Act is “Bail to CICL is the rule, but detention of CICL is an exception”.

For the reasons stated hereinabove and taking into account the materials placed on record, since the petitioner and the victim are minors and there is a positive observation in favour of the petitioner in the SIR and taking into account the other materials on record in entirety, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits, considers it proper to admit the petitioner-CICL to bail.

Resultantly, the Criminal Revision stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned PMJJB, Bhadrak are, hereby, set aside. Consequently, the CICL-cum-Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and condition as deems fit and proper by the learned Board/ Court in seisin over the matter including one condition that the petitioner shall not contact the victim or visit to her house.

.…………………………………