KASHINATH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(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 dtd. 25/7/2025 passed by the learned PO Children's Court, Rayagada in BA No. 10 of 2025 arising out of Padampur PS Case No. 61 of 2025 refusing to grant bail to Child-in-Conflict with law (CICLs), who are represented by their guardians in this revision for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 126(2)/ 132/ 121(1)/ 296/ 351(3)/324(4)/ 109(1)/ 190 of BNS, on the main allegation of pelting stone at the informant and the Police party who had come to the village for maintaining law and order situation, in which one person had died being assaulted by some villagers suspecting him to have been practicing sorcery.

(2.) Heard, Mr.Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP and perused the record, so also the copy of the Social Investigation Report as produced by learned Addl. PP.

(3.) The CICLs who have been represented by their guardians in this revision have in fact moved an application before the learned PO Children's Court, Rayagada seeking for grant of bail, but the PO Children's Court, Rayagada had refused to grant bail to them on the ground that the Social Background Report(SBR) reveals that the CICLs are under the influence of antisocial of their locality and thereby, they being covered under the proviso of Sec. 12 of the Act, however, no discussion has in fact being made by the learned PO Children's Court in the impugned order as to how the release of the CICLs would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or their release would defect the ends of justice. Merely quoting the provisions of law without any discussion with reference to any materials placed on record to refuse bail to CICLs would not be the spirit of law. Bail to CICLs is in fact the rule, but their detention in Observation Home is an exception. Further, the SIR produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor reveals that there is no negative antecedent found against any of the CICLs who are continuing their education. Besides, bail should not be refused to CICL, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that his release would bring him to association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. In this case, on careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record, this Court does not find any such thing against the CICLs who have been represented by their guardian in this revision application. In such view of the matter and taking into consideration all the materials placed on record cumulatively, this Court without expressing any opinion on merit considers it proper to admit the CICLs to bail.