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.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short „the JJ(C&P) Act, 2015), which has been preferred by the appellant(CICL) challenging the rejection order of his bail passed on dated 16.08.2023 by the learned Special Judge(POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.T. No.220 of 2023.

2. The factual backgrounds of this appeal under Section 101 (5) of the J.J.(C&P) Act, 2015, which prompted the CICL for preferring the same is that, he(CICL) was brought before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khordha on dated 11.04.2023 relating to his involvement in an incident that, he(CICL) along with others had participated in that incident on dated 10.04.2023 near his house and in such incident, one person died. Thereafter, the said matter was reported at Nirakarpur Police Station and on the basis of such report, Nirakarpur P.S. Case No.95 of 2023 was registered by the police and the police proceeded with that matter and brought the CICL and produced him(CICL) on dated 11.04.2023 before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khordha, but, the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khordha sent the CICL to the place of safety refusing his prayer for bail. Then, the said matter was sent to the learned Special Judge(POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, wherein the same was registered as C.T. No.220 of 2023, The learned Special Judge(POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar also refused the prayer for bail of the CICL on dated 16.08.2023 assigning the reasons that,

“the allegations are grave and serious in nature and in case of release of CICL on bail, there is yet likelihood of his fleeing away from the justice and there is chance of his interference with the witnesses in the matter.”

So, the CICL challenged the said refusal order of his bail passed by the learned Special Judge(POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar preferring this appeal under Section 101 (5) of the J.J. (C&P) Act, 2015.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

4. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the (CICL/appellant) contended that, the CICL(appellant) has passed +2 Arts and he is very much interested for his higher study and there is no material in the record to show that, his release on bail, shall bring him(CICL/appellant) into association with any known criminal or shall expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger, for which, the learned Special Judge(POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar should not have refused his prayer for bail, to which, learned Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant countered stating that, the reasons assigned above by the learned Special Judge(POCSO)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for the refusal of bail of the CICL are not improper or unreasonable, for which, there is nothing to interfere with the same.

5. As per the provisions of law envisaged in the proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 12 of the J.J.(C&P) Act, 2015, a CICL can be denied with the privilege of bail, only if, the court of the opinion that, (i) there appears reasonable grounds for believing that, the release of CICL on bail shall bring him into association with any known criminal or (ii) shall expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or that his such release would defeat the ends of justice and

6. The necessary essentials/criterias indicated above in (i) and (ii) o