Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 4982
ORISSA HIGH COURT
A. C. Behera, J
PREM DURGA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
CRLREV 554 / 2024
Mr. J. Panda, Advocate; Mr. T.K. Acharya, Learned Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate for the informant
Bail for a Child in Conflict with Law is the rule, and refusal requires clear, substantiated reasons as per the Juvenile Justice Act.
Headnote:(A) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 - Bail for Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) - The court ruled that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, emphasizing that denial requires clear grounds as per the Act. The CICL was denied bail based on concerns of moral and psychological danger, which the court found insufficiently substantiated. (Paras 7, 10, 14)
(B) The importance of social investigation reports in bail considerations for CICL was highlighted, stating that the absence of such reports rendered the previous orders unsustainable. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The CICL was involved in a case and was sent to an observation home, with bail denied due to potential exposure to danger. The CICL appealed the bail denial, which was upheld by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the previous orders lacked proper legal grounding and did not consider essential social investigation reports.
Issues: The court addressed whether the denial of bail was justified and whether proper procedures were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should be granted unless there are valid, substantiated reasons for refusal, and that all orders must conform to the Act's provisions.
Result: The revision is allowed, and the CICL is granted bail.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 22.11.2024 / date of judgment : 25.11.2024 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 Child in Conflict with Law (in short „CICL‟) being the petitioner challenging the dismissal order of the Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2024 passed on dated 16.07.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna confirming an order i.e. refusal of his bail passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna on dated 09.05.2024 in J.C.T. No.18 of 2024 arising out of Narla 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, he (CICL/Petitioner) was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna stating his involvement in situations with minor victim, but, The Juvenile Justice Board, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna sent the CICL to the observation Home and refused his prayer for bail on dated 09.05.2024 assigning the reasons that, “releasing the CICL on bail would expose him to moral and psychological danger and would be detrimental to the interest of the CICL.”
3. For which, the CICL challenged the said rejection order of his bail preferring an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2024 under Section 101 of The J.J. (C&P) Act, 2015 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna being the appellant.
The learned appellate court dismissed that Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2024 of the CICL on dated 16.07.2024 and confirmed the order of rejection of his bail passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna assigning the reasons that, “according to the situations relating to this matter, it is not proper to release the CICL on bail, as there is possibility of his exposure to moral, physical and psychological danger and coming in contact with any bad associate.”
4. So, the CICL filed this revision under Section 102 of The J.J. (C&P) Act, 2015 challenging the above dismissal order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2024. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner(CICL), learned counsel for the informant and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner(CICL) submitted that, the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in J.C.T. Case No.18 of 2024 as well as by the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2024 for the refusal of bail of the CICL(petitioner) are not in conformity with law, for which, the said orders are not sustainable under law, to which, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant objected contending in support of the reasons assigned above by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna as well as by the learned appellate court for the refusal of bail of the CICL(petitioner).
7. 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, the CICL can be denied with the privilege of bail, only, if, the court is 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.
8. The necessary essentials indicated above in (i) & (ii) of the proviso of Sub-section(1) to Section 12 of The J.J.(C&P) Act, 2015 must be there in the record to make out any of the above grounds out of two, which may persuade the court not to release the CICL on bail.
9. As per The J.J.(C&P) Act, 2015, the nature and gravity of the situations/circumstances relating to the involvement of the CICL into the same will b
