Brief Facts:
In the case of Subham Jena v. State of Odisha (Crl. Rev. No. 551 of 2022), the petitioners, who were minors (Children in Conflict with Law – CCL), were accused of stealing railway keys and were subsequently apprehended. The FIR was lodged by a security guard, and the petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was denied by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak. The court ruled that juveniles cannot be arrested under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, thus anticipatory bail was not applicable.
Point of Law:
The primary legal issue was whether a child in conflict with the law could apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The court had to interpret the applicability of anticipatory bail provisions in cases involving juveniles, particularly when the arrest is not explicitly mentioned in the JJ Act but apprehension is. The petitioners argued that “apprehension” in the JJ Act is synonymous with “arrest,” justifying the application of Section 438.
High Court Ruling:
The High Court of Orissa, after reviewing arguments and precedents, held that an application under Section 438 of CrPC is maintainable for juveniles. The court ruled that “apprehension” in the JJ Act could be equated with arrest, and since there is no explicit exclusion in the JJ Act similar to other statutes, juveniles are entitled to anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioners to be released on a personal bond in case of apprehension.