IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV NO.697 of 2025 (An application U/S. 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 r/w Sec. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Kashinath …. Petitioners Sahu(Guardian/Uncle of CICL Ranjan Sahu & others -versus-

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party For Petitioners : Mr. T.K.Sahu, Advocate For Opposite : Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl.PP Party CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.12.2025 (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 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Children’s Court, Rayagada in BA No. 09 of 2025 confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rayagada in JJC Case No. 25 of 2025 arising out of Padmapur PS Case No. 60 of 2025 refusing to grant bail to the revision-petitioners who are child in conflict with law(CICLs) for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 332/126(2)/115(2)/118(2)/ 74/296/351(3)/103(2)/324(4)/61(2)/190 of BNS r/w see 4 of Odisha Prevention of Witch hunting Act, 2013, on the main allegation of rioting along with co-accused persons being armed with deadly weapons and assaulting the deceased to death suspecting him to be practicing sorcery and black magic.

2. Heard, Mr.Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and Mr.P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP and perused the record.

3. It is no more res-integra that bail to CICL is the rule, but detention is an exception in view of the Sec. 12 of the Act, but its proviso prescribes that the CICL shall not be released on bail, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of CICL is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Further, the language used in Sec. 12 of the Act makes it imperative that while refusing bail to CICL, the forum must indicate the circumstance denying bail to the CICL. In this case, the learned PO Children’s Court, Rayagada while refusing bail to the CICLs has inter alia observed as under:-

“The Social Background Report (SBR) reveals that the present petitioners (CICLs) are under the influence of antic socials of their locality”.

4. On the other hand, the certified copy of Social Investigation Report(SIR) as annexed by learned counsel for the petitioners discloses at Paragraph-8 that there is no negative antecedent found against the CICLs as reported and they are continuing with their education, although the allegation has been made against them for commission of heinous offence along with adult accused persons and the allegation arises out of the differences of opinion between the families of the area with the deceased family for practicing sorcery activities. The above observation made in the SIR of the CICLs go to reveal that the issue involved in this case leading to commission of the offence is on account of some social problem in the locality, but no other criminal case has been reported against the CICLs. Be that as it may, the learned PO Children’s Court probably swayed away by the allegation leveled against the petitioners, but a CICL cannot be detained in custody merely because the allegation against them are heinous or serious, unless the grounds as enumerated in the proviso to Sec. 12 of the Act stands attracted. In this situation, especially when some of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL Nos. 6650 & 6655 of 2025 and there being no adverse report against any of the CICLs, this Court does not consider to keep the petitioners-CICLs in confinement, merely because the SBR reveals that the alleged offence was committed by the CICLs due to anti-social friend circle which observation was without any further explanation or clarification. In the circ