Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 323 of 2024 Trilochan Pradhan … Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- … Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 05.09.2024 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This Revision U/S. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short “the Act”) is directed against the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court under POCSO Act, Dhenkanal in Juv. Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024 arising out of Parjang P.S. Case No.144 of 2024 for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.376- AB of IPC r/w. Section 6/4(2) of the POCSO Act. By the aforesaid order, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court
Facts
under POCSO Act, Dhenkanal has not only confirmed the order passed by learned JJB, Dhenkanal in JC No. 11 of 2024, but also rejected the prayer for bail to the Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) in the aforesaid case. The factual matrix, however, exposits an Page 1 of 6 allegation against the CICL for committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. 3. In
Legal Reasoning
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court has found some allegations against the CICL for committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim and the medical examination report of the victim, of course, demonstrates some brutality meted to the victim, but bail to a CICL cannot be refused, unless the proviso to Section 12 of the Act is made out. The proviso to Section 12 of the Act only prescribes that bail can be refused to a CICL, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person (CICL) into association with any known criminal or exposes the said person to any moral, physical or psychological Page 3 of 6 danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. The Social Investigation Report as made available to the Court by Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel reveals only about parental neglect and the commission of alleged crime is on account of intoxication of the CICL. Further, the result of the enquiry attached to the Social Investigation Report as furnished by the Probation Officer discloses that the CICL was under intoxication and for that reason, he could not know what happened to him and what kind of mistake he committed and earlier the father of the CICL had scolded orally for such type of mistake and activities. Further, the Probation Officer has also stated in such report that the CICL has committed the act under the ignorance of law, lack of mental values, poor adult supervision, premature thinking being unaware of the consequences and under the influence of teen-age infatuation and there is no previous adverse report against the CICL, who is repenting a lot being implicated in this case. 6. The learned Appellate Court in paragraph-8 of the order has taken note of the provision of Section 12 of the Act, but while appreciating such provision, it has only been indicated that the release of the CICL would “defeat the ends of justice”, but how the release of the CICL would defeat the ends of justice has neither been discussed nor been elaborated in the impugned order. It is also true that Page 4 of 6 the learned Appellate Court while analyzing the order of learned JJB, Dhenkanal has stated in the impugned order that although the learned JJB vide the impugned order had observed that the CICL would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger, in case he is released on bail, yet the basis of such conclusion has not been explained in the said order. Further, the learned Appellate Court while acknowledging that the decision or conclusion of the learned JJB, Dhenkanal regarding the ground as indicated in proviso to Section 12 of the Act has not been substantiated, yet the learned Appellate Court refused bail to the CICL by mentioning therein that when it is apparent that the release of the CICL on bail would defeat the ends of justice, he cannot and should not be enlarged on bail at least on this juncture. The aforesaid observation of the leaned Appellate Court is only indicative of the emotion of the said Court, but it is bereft of with any reasoning. Further, when the statute prescribes for grant of bail to the CICL, unless the proviso to Section 12 of the Act is satisfied, it would be improper to detain the CICL in observation home. 7. From the discussion made hereinabove and taking into account the rival submissions together with the observation made by the learned Probation Officer in the Social Investigation Report, this Court, Page 5 of 6 however, considers that the CICL has made out grounds for grant of bail to him. 8. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court under POCSO Act, Dhenkanal in Juv. Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024 is, hereby, set aside, so also the order of the learned JJB refusing bail to the CICL. 9.
Arguments
the course of hearing, Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the revision- petitioner, however, forcefully submits that not only the order of the learned JJB, Dhenkanal is bereft of any reasoning, but also the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in refusing the bail to the CICL is without any substance nor the requirement of law has been adhered to while refusing bail to the CICL, since Section 12 of the Act prescribes for grant of bail to the CICL, unless the release of the CICL is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or exposes him to any moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further criticized by Mr. Tripathy that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in criminal appeal reveals only emotion of the Court, but not any substance, inasmuch as while only highlighting the third ground that the release of the CICL would “defeat the ends of justice”, the learned Appellate Court has assigned no reason to defeat the right of the CICL to be released on bail. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Tripathy prays to grant bail to the CICL by inter alia contending that after due investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted and the CICL has been detained in Page 2 of 6 observation home since 22.03.2024 and there being no substantive punishment prescribed for any offence against a CICL, who in the present case is aged about 14 years, rather the legislature has only thought of correcting the CICL found guilty for the offences. 4. On the contrary, Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel, however, strongly opposes the submission of Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner by contending inter alia that not only the gruesome act has been committed by the CICL, but also the medical examination report of the victim demonstrates a clearcut brutal rape upon the victim and thereby, the CICL should not be enlarged on bail. 5.
Decision
In the result, the CRLREV stands allowed and the CICL is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper by the learned JJB, Dhenkanal in seisin over the matter. 10. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. S. Sasmal (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Sep-2024 13:17:03 Page 6 of 6