Pradeep Barik State of Odisha … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 15 of 2024 Pradeep Barik State of Odisha ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. Arijeet Mishra, Adv. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 08.02.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 03. 1. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Jeypore Mahila P.S. Case No. 128 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1298 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Jeypore, Dist- Koraput registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC read with Sections 4(2), 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 26.12.2023 by the learned P.O., Special Court under POCSO Act, Jeypore. While rejecting the prayer for bail the learned Court below has observed that although the victim does not have objection against the bail application, since she is a child and the alleged offences are grave and serious in nature, absence of her objection is of no help Page 1 of 5 to the accused. 3. On 08.01.2024, after considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and perusing the rejection order, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate had been directed to serve a copy of the bail application on the informant through the I.I.C. of Police Station and it has been observed that the question of issuing notice to the informant would be considered on the next date. 4. The informant and the victim have received notice and have appeared from the virtual High Court, Koraput at Jeypore being identified by Ms. Bhanumati Halwa, Constable of Jeypore Mahila Police Station. It is therefore not necessary to issue further notice to them by post. 5. The prosecution allegation in brief is that the victim aged about 15 years, was studying in Class-X in the High School and on 22.11.2023, she did not return home after school hours. On enquiry the informant learnt that she had not gone to school that day and that the present petitioner had kidnapped her. So the informant went to the house of the petitioner, but the petitioner had fled from the house taking the victim with him on his bike. The informant was abused by the brother, father and mother of the petitioner and they threatened to kill them. Page 2 of 5 6. Mr. Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young man and is in custody since 05.01.2024. He further submits that the victim was in love with the petitioner and they had eloped together and no force has been used by the petitioner which is evident from her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Considering the age of the petitioner, his prayer for bail may be sympathetically considered. 7. The statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveal that she was in love with the accused for last one year. On 22.11.2023, she called the accused on phone and he came and took her to his friend’s house. Thereafter, he took her to his house. They stayed together for 12 days and have had physical relations for about five to six times and he had promised to marry her. 8. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating that in view of the age of the victim which is less than 16 years, her consent is of no consequence. The offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC read with Section 4(2) of POCSO Act are squarely made out against him and the petitioner is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses especially the victim and may try to kidnap her again, if he is released Page 3 of 5 on bail. 9. The informant submits that the victim is studying in Class-X and her final examinations will start this month (February, 2024) and will continue till 5th March, 2024. If the petitioner will be released on bail, he is likely to disturb and harass the victim girl, for which he should not be granted bail. He further submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may elope with the victim again for which suitable conditions should be imposed to prevent him from contacting the minor victim. The victim has submitted that she is staying with her parents and will appear in the Class-X examinations and the petitioner should be released on bail. 10. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the submission of the counsel and the informant and the victim and the contents of the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and the age of the petitioner, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail, subject to stringent conditions. 11. The petitioner- Pradeep Barik shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released after 5th March, 2024. (ii) He shall not go near the house, village or school of the Page 4 of 5 victim girl or try to contact her. (iii) He will not try to influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses. (iv) He will report before the Jeypore Sadar Police Station once in a month preferably on a Sunday between 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. till completion of trial. 12. Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of bail. 13. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 15. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for onward transmission to the I.I.C., Jeypore Sadar Police Station. Sukanta (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 09-Feb-2024 20:19:12 Page 5 of 5