The court ruled that bail for a Child in Conflict With Law should not be denied on speculative grounds, emphasizing protection over criminalization in adolescent relationships, as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal in the nature of bail application by the Appellant-Petitioner who is a Child in Conflict With Law (In Short “CICL”) is directed against the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children’s Court, Nayagarh in TR No.132 of 2024 refusing grant bail to the CICL in connection with Juveline Case No. 16 of 2024 arising out Bhitamati PS Case No. 148 of 2024 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3)/294/323/506/34 of IPC read with Sec. 4(2) and 6(1) of POCSO Act on the main allegation of kidnapping the victim aged about less than 16 years and committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her

2. Heard, Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner, Mr. Karunakar Das, learned counsel representing the Informant and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the record including the Social Background Report(SBR) prepared by Child Welfare Police Official and the Social Investigation Report(SIR) prepared by Legal-Cum-Probation Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Nayagarh as produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of the record, there appears no dispute with regard to allegation against the Appellant for committing certain offences under IPC & POCSO Act, but fact remains that the allegation appearing against the Appellant arises out of love relationship between two adolescents. It is to be borne in mind that the intentions of legislature in POCSO Act is not to criminalize the romantic relationship between two adolescents, but to prevent the child-victim from the rigors of the offences, the legislature has enacted the POCSO Act. It also appears from the SIR in this case that the victim and the Appellant are two teenagers under 18 years of age and they being in courtship had indulged in some kind of relationships as alleged, but bail to a CICL can be refused under three contingencies as enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, “the Act”) which provides that unless the release of the CICL on bail is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him into moral, physical and physiological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice, he should not be detained in observation home by curtailing his personal liberty. In this case, the SIR clearly reveals that the release of CICL on bail would physically harm him and his life may be in danger, but Mr. K. Dash, learned counsel for the informant informs the Court that there is good and harmonious relationship between the family members of the victim and the CICL. It is, however, needs to be emphasized by the parents of the victim and the CICL that they should discourage the two adolescents from indulging in any kind of activities which will land them in trouble and they should not be get married till they attains the required age as prescribed under law because the learned counsel for the Informant-victim informs this Court that a proposal for marriage of the CICL and victim has been mooted by their family members.

4. The learned Children’s Court has refused bail to the CICL by taking note of the fact that the parents of CICL have failed to keep away him from criminal association and they are not looking after his education and, therefore, release of the CICL on bail will definitely expose him to physical and psychological danger and thereby defeating the ends of the justice, but fact remains that the aforesaid facts noted by the learned trial Court is reflection of its serious concern about the CICL which is appreciable, but such