Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 163 (ORI)

SURAJ SWAIN v. STATE OF ORISSA

2016-02-26

S.PUJAHARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : S. Pujahari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal revision IS directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 1801.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada dismissing Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2016 and confirming the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Juvenile Case No.3 of 2016 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release him on bail. 3. It appears that the petitioner in this case was juvenile in conflict with law and said to have been indicted in a case punishable under Sections 366/376(2)(n)(i) of I.P.C., Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act. The petitioner had made prayer, for bail before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which was refused on the ground that the release of the juvenile in, conflict with law shall cause physical, moral and psychological danger to him and it shall defeat the ends of existence. The petitioner challenged the same in the aforesaid criminal appeal, but the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case there is no material on record disclosing the fact that the release of the juvenile in conflict with law on bail is detrimental to his interest or shall defeat the ends of justice. As such, the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada is based on surmises and conjecture. The same has also been passed in oblivious to the mandate 0 Section 12 of the Act. He also submits that learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada is also without appreciating the aforesaid fact confirmed the order. Since both the forums passed the orders in exercise of jurisdiction vested on them with material irregularity, the same are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. He also submits that learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada is also without appreciating the aforesaid fact confirmed the order. Since both the forums passed the orders in exercise of jurisdiction vested on them with material irregularity, the same are liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State, however, defends the orders with the submission that since the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada has observed that release of the juvenile in conflict with law is detrimental to his interest relying on the material on record, the petitioner's case is covered by the exception of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for release on bail. The learned Sessions Judge) Mayurbhanj at Baripada on scrutiny of the materials available on record having confirmed the same, he submits, no illegality or infirmity is there in the orders passed. Hence, this criminal revision challenging the same is devoid of merit. 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 mandates that a juvenile In conflict with law be released on bail with or without surety or be placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. From the aforesaid, it appears that the release on bail of a juvenile in conflict with law is a rule but refusal is an exception which can only be done in the existence of circumstances detrimental to the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law or defeats the ends of justice. Heinousness and seriousness of an offence has got nothing to do in consideration of the prayer for bail. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. Baripada in order to refuse the bail of a juvenile in conflict with law must have material with regard to existence of circumstances detrimental to his interest or can refuse his release if the same shall defeat the ends of justice. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. Baripada in order to refuse the bail of a juvenile in conflict with law must have material with regard to existence of circumstances detrimental to his interest or can refuse his release if the same shall defeat the ends of justice. In the absence of the same, a juvenile in conflict with law deserves to be released on bail, is well settled in law. 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the impugned order is addressed, it appears to this Court that the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada has not justified how the release of the juvenile in conflict with law shall be detrimental to his interest and defeat the ends of justice. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada has not discussed the materials which led him to believe the release of the juvenile in conflict with law is detrimental to his interest and shall defeat the ends of justice. Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada also in oblivious to the aforesaid fact refused to interfere with the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In such premises, this Court is of the view that the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada passed the orders with material irregularity. 8. Hence, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Principal Magistrate, juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada which has merged with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, Baripada to re-hear the petition under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and pass necessary order appreciating the material available on record and law in this regard on its own merit within fifteen days of receipt of the certified copy of this order. L.C.R. received along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith. Final Result : Allowed