Balia Marandi vs State Of Orissa & Anr.

G. Satapathy, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-PO, Children’s Court, Baripada in CT Case No.04 of 2023 refusing to grant bail to the appellant-cum-Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) in connection with Betnoti PS Case No.364 of 2022 for commission of offence punishable U/S.376(AB) of the IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, on the main allegation of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor child of three years.

Heard, Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Satya Narayan Behera, learned counsel appearing virtually for the informant and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegation against the appellant for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a small child of three years, but grant or refusal of bail to a CICL can be considered in the light of provision of Section 12 of PCOSO Act, which prescribes that bail to the juvenile can only be refused, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of CICL would 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. It is strange, but true that the learned PO, Children’s Court, Baripada has not discussed a single word of Section 12 of the Act, while refusing bail to the CICL, but the PO is probably swayed away by the allegation and rejected the bail application of the appellant on merit. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is in detention home since 12.12.2022, but the trial is going on and ten witnesses have already been examined. The Social Investigation Report as supplied by the learned State Counsel does not disclose any supervening circumstance to consider that the release of CICL would 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, which are mandatory requirements of the provision of bail to CICL. In the aforesaid facts and situation and there being no supervening circumstance concerning the CICL contrary to the provision of Section 12 of the Act and the CICL being in detention home since last three and half years without trial being concluded, this Court without expressing any view on merits, considers it proper to admit the appellant to bail.

Hence, the CRLA stands allowed and the impugned order is, hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter including the conditions that the father of the appellant shall ensure that the appellant-CICL shall not visit to the house of the victim or contact her in any way and he shall not follow the victim or loiter in or around her at any place in any manner.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference.