p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.1331 of 2025 Raju Nayak @ Kokili … Appellant Mr. J.Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Respondent Mr. P.Satapathy, Addl.PP CORAM:JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL):06.04.2026 05. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, “the Act”) by the appellant, who is represented by his mother guardian is directed against the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in JR Case No. 54 of 2025 corresponding to Bada Bazar PS Case No. 234 of 2025 refusing to grant bail to Child-in- Conflict with law (CICL) for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 103(1)/140(1)/189(2)/ 191(3)/190 of BNS R/w Sec. 25/27 Arms Act on the main allegation of abducting the deceased-Bidyadhar Panigrahi and injured Nrusingha Sahoo and assaulting them by deadly weapons along with co-accused persons resulting in death of Bidyadhar Panigrahi and injury to Nrusingha Sahoo. 2. Heard, Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. P.Satapathy, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record. At the outset, Mr.Sahoo clarifies that the appellant was p. 2 having one criminal antecedent in JGR Case No. 66 of 2023, but he has already been acquitted of the charge therein and there is no other criminal antecedent reported against the appellant. Further, Mr.Sahoo volunteers to withhold bail to the CICL, if he is having any case other than the present case pending against him. 3. Admittedly, bail can be refused to CICL only if there exists reasonable grounds for believing that release of the CICIL would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to physical or psychological danger or his release would defeats the ends of justice, but in the present case, adult co- accused Bhaskar Nayak, S.Sankar Dora @ S.Sankar Dora, Kartikeswar Meher and Sudarsan Nayak have already been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL Nos. 11251, 11769, 11775 & 8584 of 2025. Further, the materials on record disclose that initially the CICL or any of the co-accused persons were not being armed with any sharp cutting weapon, but later on, co- accused Bhaskar Nayak allegedly supplied one sword to his son Balia Nayak at the second spot as well as co- accused Kartikeswar Nayak allegedly arrived at the second spot with a billhook and there is allegation against Balia Nayak, Kalia Nayak and Mohan Nayak for assaulting the deceased and the injured with sharp cutting weapons. It is also stated in the allegation against the petitioner that he attacked the injured with p. 3 a brickbat. In addition, the Social Investigation Report as produced by the learned Addl. PP. reveals that the CICL may be provided with appropriate rehabilitative support to ensure his reformation and social reintegration and the reason/contributing factors for alleged commission of offence has been described therein that under the influence of peer pressure and alcohol, the child unintentionally became involved in the incident and the lack of proper parental supervision, emotional dependence on elder friends and limited awareness of the consequences of his action were likely to be contributing factors and there is no evidence to suggest that the child had a pre-mediated intention to commit the offence and his involvement seems to be impulsive and situational, rather than habitual or criminal in nature. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the sum totality of the materials placed on record together with the status of the appellant as a CICL and last but not the least, keeping in view the principle that bail is the rule, but detention of CICL being an exception, this Court without expressing any opinion on merit, considers it proper to admit the appellant to bail, but subject to certain conditions. 5. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellant be released on bail on such terms and p. 4 conditions as deems fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin of the case with following conditions:- (i) The parents shall ensure that the child should not consume alcohol and continue his education. In view of the specific submission as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the benefit of this order shall not be extended to the CICL, if he is having any case other than the present case pending against him. 6. Accordingly, the CRLA stands disposed of. (G. Satapathy) Judge kishore