The court emphasized the necessity for complying with statutory requirements regarding age determination for minors in criminal proceedings, rendering improperly assumed jurisdiction a nullity.

Judgment :

Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.

1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Informant-Opposite Party No.2 and learned counsel for the State in both the cases. Perused the applications which were taken up for hearing today.

3. BLAPL No.3678 of 2025 has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner for his release on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, the Petitioner has also approached this Court by filing an application under Section 438 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Bargarh in C.T. Case No.43 of 2024 whereby the learned ADJ-cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Bargarh was pleased to reject the application filed by the Petitioner dated 06.01.2025 under Section 34 of the POCSO Act on the question of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that since both the applications involve an identical issue, they are taken up together for hearing. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Informant has no objection to the same. Accordingly, the CRLMC application as well as the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are taken up together and disposed of by the following order.

5. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that the Opposite Party No.2-Informant on 26.09.2024 lodged a written report inter alia before the Attabira Police Station, , alleging that the present Petitioner has been keeping physical relationship with her by giving her false assurance to marry her. On 05.09.2024, when she asked the Petitioner to marry her, the Petitioner abused her in filthy language, assaulted the Opposite Party No.2-Informant and threatened to kill her. It has also been alleged that as a result of such sexual and physical relationship, the Opposite Party No.2 had to undergo three illegal abortions. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the IIC of Attabira Police Station registered an F.I.R. against the Petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/294/313/323/506/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

6. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present applications is that although the Petitioner was aged about 17 years and the Victim was 16 years and both were minor at the time of the occurrence, however such fact has not been taken into consideration while registering the case against the present Petitioner. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015”), particularly Section-6 thereof, when a person, who has allegedly committed an offence, was below the age of eighteen years and in the meantime he has completed eighteen years of age and subsequently apprehended for commission of such offence when he was below the age of eighteen years, then such person shall, subject to the provisions of the section, be treated as a child during the process of inquiry. He further submitted that in view of Section 6(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 the accused, who was a minor at the time of the commission of an offence, if not released on bail by the Board, shall be placed in a “place of safety” during the process of inquiry. In view of the aforesaid settled provision in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, learned counsel for the Petitioner alleged that such provisions have not been followed at all in t