Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Dipu Mahanta - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
CRLREV No.343 of 2024
Decided On : 28-10-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of bail rejection order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. hearing without aggrieved person participation (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. criteria for denying bail under j.j.(c&p) act (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. propositions of law regarding bail for cicl (Para 11) |
| 5. insufficient grounds for bail rejection (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. allowing bail and setting aside previous orders (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C.BEHERA, J.
This revision has been filed under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the 'J.J.(C&P) Act, 2015') by the CICL being the petitioner challenging the dismissal order of the criminal appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2024 passed on dated 17.05.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children's Court, Keonjhar confirming the order of rejection of bail of the CICL (petitioner in this revision) passed on dated 18.04.2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar in JJC Case No.30 of 2024 arising out of Jhumpura P.S. Case No.104 of 2024.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision under Section 102 of the J.J.(C&P) Act, 2015, which prompted the CICL (petitioner) for filing of the same is that, the petitioner (CICL) was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar alleging an incident against him(CICL) that, he (CICL) along with others having more than five in numbers on 12.04.2024 at about 8.00 P.M. at Chingudiposi Chhack under the jurisdiction of Jhumpura Police Station in the district of Keonjhar forcibly took away a cash of Rs.1,000/-(rupees one thousand) from the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No.OD-09-V-1020, for which, the driver of the said Truck informed that matter in writing before the Jhumpura Police Station and on the basis of such written report, the police registered Jhumpura P.S. Case No.104 of 2024 under Section 395 of the I.P.C., 1860 and proceeded with the said matter and brought the CICL and produced him before the Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar stating his involvement with that incident, but, the Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar sent the CICL to the observation Home, Rourkela after rejecting his prayer for bail assigning the reasons that, if he(CICL) will be released on bail, then, the same will bring him in association with known criminals and will expose him to moral and psychological danger and as per the nature and gravity of the allegations, the same would defeat the ends of justice.
3. For which, he (CICL) challenged the said order of rejection of his bail passed on 18.04.2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board in J.J.C. Case No.30 of 2024 by preferring an appeal under Section 101 of the J.J. (C&P) Act, 2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Children's Court, Keonjhar being an appellant vide Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2024.
4. The learned appellate court dismissed that Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2024 of the CICL on dated 17.05.2024 confirming the order of rejection of his bail passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar assigning the same reasons like Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar, i.e., in case of release of the CICL on bail, the same will bring him in association with known criminals and will expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and as the nature of allegations alleged against him are grave in nature, for which, his release on bail will defeat the ends of justice.
5. So, the CICL filed this revision under Section 102 of the J.J. (C&P) Act, 2015 being the petitioner challenging the above dismissal order dated 17.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children's Court, Keonjhar.
6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State(Opposite Party) only, as, the so-called aggrieved person of the alleged incident did not choose to participate in the hearing of this revision in spite of receiving the notice for the same through the learned Additional Standing Counsel for
Bail for children under the Juvenile Justice Act is a rule, not an exception; denial requires clear justification based on evidence of harm or risk, independent of accusation severity.
Bail for a Child in Conflict with Law is the rule, and refusal is exceptional, requiring clear evidence of potential danger or interference with justice per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Bail for minors is the rule, and its denial must be justified with clear evidence of risk or harm, not merely based on allegation severity.
Bail for children in conflict with the law is the rule, denial requires substantial evidence meeting specific statutory criteria; absence of such justifies reversal of a bail denial decision.
Denial of bail to a Child in Conflict with Law requires substantial grounds; mere seriousness of allegations is insufficient if statutory criteria are not met.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the absence of reasonable grounds for believing that a juvenile's release would bring him into association with kn....
The presumption of innocence and the best interests of the child should guide bail decisions for children in conflict with the law.
The gravity of the offence does not justify denying bail to a juvenile; specific findings must be recorded to demonstrate risk of moral danger or association with known criminals.
If the juvenile is released on bail, he will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and confirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and rejected the appeal of the juvenile.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
