Bail Is The Rule For Juveniles Unless Exceptional Circumstances Exist: Orissa HC

Reaffirming that detention for a juvenile in conflict with law remains a strictly circumscribed exception, the Orissa High Court has granted bail to a minor accused of aggravated sexual assault, ruling that unproven apprehensions cannot override statutory protections.

In a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a single-judge bench comprising Justice G. Satapathy evaluated the validity of lower court orders that refused bail to a minor charged under the BNS, the POCSO Act, and the SC & ST of (PoA) Act.

Court's Analysis on Statutory Grounds for Bail

The High Court examined the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and underscored that statutory grounds for refusing bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were absent. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Bail to the juvenile can only be refused, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the CICL is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose the CICL to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice."

Addressing the cause of the alleged offence, the Court noted that the SIR attributed the incident to emotional immaturity and improper guidance arising out of personal acquaintance. The Court held that the victim's safety concerns could be addressed through specific conditions rather than prolonged detention.

The Court has following directions:

"(i) The father of the petitioner shall ensure that the CICL shall not contact the victim or visit her house;
(ii) The father of the petitioner shall ensure that the petitioner shall not follow the victim or loiter in and around her at any place;
(iii) The father of the petitioner shall ensure that the petitioner shall not threaten/ influence/ induce/ coerce any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them disclosing such facts before the Court."

Background

The revision petition challenged the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2026, which affirmed the order of the Addl. Juvenile Justice Board, Chhatrapur refusing bail in connection with Dharakote PS Case No. 183 of 2026.

The petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 115(2) of the BNS, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST of (PoA) Act, on allegations of committing sexual assault. The victim appeared via video conferencing alongside her father and opposed the bail prayer citing life threats. However, the High Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been submitted, the petitioner had been in a detention home since 01.05.2026, and no material suggested a genuine life threat. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and granted bail under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRLREV NO.449 of 2026
Case Title: Swadhin Badtya @ Badatya @ Gandhi v. State of Odisha & Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.S. Ray (2), Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ORI) 62