Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 518 (ORI)

Biswajit Mahakud v. State of Orissa

2015-09-01

S.PUJAHARI

body2015
ORDER : S. Pujahari, J. 1. Heard. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak in J.G.R. Case No. 4 of 2015 which has been confirmed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak vide order dated 23.02.2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 3 of 2015 with prayer to quash the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak passed the impugned order refusing to release the petitioner on bail without showing any reasons that in what manner the release of the juvenile shall defeat the ends of justice. There is also no material whatsoever before the trial court disclosing the fact that the release of the juvenile shall defeat the ends of justice in any manner and his release shall bring him into the association with known criminals and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. The learned Sessions Judge also oblivious to the same, having confirmed the order, the same cannot be sustained. Hence, he submits to allow this criminal revision and direct to release the petitioner on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State, however, makes objection to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and submits that since the learned C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak has considered that release of the petitioner shall defeat the ends of justice and detrimental to his interest and the appellate court has' confirmed the same in the appeal, there was no illegality in the impugned order. Hence this revision is devoid of merit. 5. It is well settled in law that heinousness and seriousness of the offence has nothing to do while considering the prayer for release of a juvenile in conflict with law on bail. Bail is the rule and refusal is the exception in case of a juvenile in conflict with law. The prayer for bail of a juvenile in conflict with law can be refused if the same is detrimental to his interest or his release would defeat the ends of justice. But there must be material substantiating the same. 6. Bail is the rule and refusal is the exception in case of a juvenile in conflict with law. The prayer for bail of a juvenile in conflict with law can be refused if the same is detrimental to his interest or his release would defeat the ends of justice. But there must be material substantiating the same. 6. Keeping in mind when the order of the learned C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak is addressed, it appears that the learned C.J.M.-cum-Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak refused to release petitioner, who is the juvenile in conflict with law on bail assigning the reason that his release shall bring him into association with known criminals and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release will defeat the ends of justice. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Bhadrak sitting over the appeal has confirmed the order of refusal on the ground that the release of the juvenile will defeat the ends of justice and will bring him into association with known criminals during course of investigation though no material was there to substantiate the same. 7. No doubt the refusal of the bail of juvenile can be made in existence of circumstances which is detrimental to the interest of juvenile in conflict with law, but such finding of detrimental of interest must not be on surmises and conjectures. The court concerned must have sufficient material before it substantiating the same. It appears that no such material was available with the trial court as well as the appellate court to arrive at such finding. Therefore, it appears to this Court that the trial court as well as the appellate court appears to have exercised the jurisdiction vested on them with material irregularity. 8. Hence, considering the facts and submissions made, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak which has merged with the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Crl. Appeal No. 03 of 2015 stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days of receipt of certified copy of this order keeping in mind the observation as aforesaid and also the mandate of law. 9. The matter is remitted back to the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak with a direction to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days of receipt of certified copy of this order keeping in mind the observation as aforesaid and also the mandate of law. 9. With the aforesaid order, this CRLREV stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.