IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.636 of 2025 (An application Section 102(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 r/w.

Sec.442 of BNSS (Sec.401 of CrPC).

Subhashis Mishra @ … Petitioner Subasish Mishra -versus-

State of Odisha & Another … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate (informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:14.11.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This Criminal Revision U/S.102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, “the Act”) is directed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the P.O., Children’s Court-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Angul in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 confirming the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned PMJJB, Angul in J.D. Case No.73 of 2025 in refusing to grant bail to the revision-petitioner in connection with Angul P.S. Case No.794 of 2025 for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 65(2)/ 127(2)/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of the BNS r/w. Sec. 6 of POCSO Act, on the main allegation of committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim aged about 7 to 8 years, who is reading in Class-II.

2. Heard, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel, who is appearing along with Mr. Kaustuva Mohanty, learned counsel for the revision- petitioner-cum-Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) by filing appearance memo, which is taken on record; Mr. A. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP and Mr. Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the informant in the matter and perused the record.

3. The facts in this case demonstrates a very peculiar story in which a child of 7 years was alleged to have been raped and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by another child aged about 14 years, who is reading in Class-IX, but fact remains that bail to CICL is the rule, but his detention in observation home is an exception. The proviso appended to Sec.12 of the Act clearly prescribes that unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the CICL would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice; bail cannot be refused to the CICL. In adverting to these factors, this Court of course has to consider the Social Investigation Report (SIR) of the CICL in which it is stated that the child has got a very good background of an educated and affluent family, but probably the reason of the crime is due to parental neglect in guiding the child or taking care of the child properly. It is also stated in the SIR that nothing adverse has come against the CICL, rather it is opined that the CICL is having extracurricular activity in music and he had actively participated in the events of music competition in State level and had secured prizes. In this situation, the social media galore and influence cannot be ruled out in the life of the CICL. Further, the SIR also discloses that the behavior of the child towards the inmates of the observation home is not only cordial, but also decent and good. It is also stated in the SIR that the CICL is ignorant of the consequence of this alleged act, but he needs proper care inasmuch as today’s child is tomorrow’s future and society depends heavily on child for building its future. It is not disputed that the child is reading in Class-IX and his father is an employee of Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. in Managerial Post being the Deputy General Manager, so also his mother is an educated house wife and his elder brother is a B.Tech student and the family of the CICL maintains good social relationship in the community and there is no adverse criminal antecedents reported against the CICL, who has firmed roots in the society.

4. It is no doubt alleged against the revision- petitioner for commission of sexual offenc