The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.1250 of 2025 Chandan Kumar Sahoo @ Sahu ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr. Jayanta Kumar Majhi Opposite Party Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.04.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State. Perused the case diary as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S, 2023 and other materials placed on record by the parties. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Singla P.S. Case No.171 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.578 of 2024, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Basta, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 85/115(2)/64(2)(m)/351(2)/3(5) of B.N.S., 2023. Page 1 of 5. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Minjalata Sahu lodged an F.I.R. at Singla Police Station on 04.10.2024 at 10.50 P.M. to the effect that she had married to Chandan Kumar Sahu (the present Petitioner) as per Hindu custom and rites before seven months. After two months of her marriage her husband and father- in-law and mother-in-law tortured her mentally and physically for dowry and assaulted her. On 08.07.2024 and 04.09.2024, her father- in-law Jatia @ Dayanidhi Sahu forcibly committed rape repeatedly against her will. Now she is two months pregnant. Hence, the present F.I.R. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that since there exists a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner after his marriage with the victim is staying at Hyderabad alone as he is serving in a private company there. The victim stayed with her parents-in-law. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the principal allegation of rape is against the father-in-law of the victim and not against the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner stays at Hyderabad and he is no way involved in the present case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event he is released on pre-arrest bail in connection with the present case. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the Page 2 of 5. release of the Petitioner on pre-arrest bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted that apart from the allegation of rape, the victim has also alleged dowry torture against the entire in-laws family members including the present Petitioner. He further contended that investigation is still on. Therefore, the release of the Petitioner at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the victim and there is every likelihood he might abscond from justice in the event he is released on pre-arrest bail. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 7. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State produced a copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023. On perusal of the said statement of the victim, it appears that allegation of rape is against one Dayanidhi Sahu, who is the father-in-law of the victim. The specific allegation made against her father-in-law is with regard to sexual assault as well as committing rape on different occasions. In the statement of the victim, she has not disputed the fact that the Petitioner has been staying at Hyderabad in connection with his job. Such statement also conforms the allegation with regard to the dowry torture by her in-laws family members. He further complained that she has been abandoned by her husband. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the case diary as well as the materials on record, particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, it is observed that so far the allegation of rape is concerned, the same is against one Dayanidhi Sahu, who is the father-in-law of the victim. This Court further observes that the victim has not made any allegation against the Page 3 of 5. Petitioner, who happens to be the husband, with regard to commission of any sexual offence, although there are allegation with regard to dowry torture against the Petitioner. 9. Taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the allegation against the present Petitioner, although this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner, however, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the Court in seisin over the matter within a period of four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the Court in seisin over the matter shall release him on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. While imposing conditions, the court in seisin over the matter shall also impose the following additional conditions:- I. The Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when his presence is required by the I.O. for the purpose of investigation; II. He shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case; III. He shall not harass/threaten/torture/ill-treat the victim or her family members in any manner whatsoever while on bail; and IV. he shall provide a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the Victim until the same is varied/modified by the competent court. Page 4 of 5. Violation of any of the conditions imposed either by this Court or the court in seisin over the matter shall entail cancellation of bail. 10. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Apr-2025 10:24:08 Page 5 of 5.