The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1552 of 2024 Babul @ Jaga Pradhan ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Adv. State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. P.C. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 03. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 30.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. The Petitioner, who is languishing in jail custody since 08.11.2023, has approached this Court by filing the present bail application. The present bail application has been filed before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his bail application in BLAPL No.754 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul vide order dated 08.01.2024. 3. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant/victim herself on 07.11.2023, the IIC, Chhendipada P.S. has registered Chhendipada P.S. Case No.481 dated 07.11.2023 for commission of an offence under Sections 448/376(2)(n)/506 of IPC. Implicating the present Petitioner as the sole accused in the present crime. Page 1 of 6. 4. As per the FIR allegation, the informant has stated that on 06.11.2023 while she was alone in her residence, at about 7 P.M. in the evening, the present Petitioner trespassed into her house and committed rape on her. Thereafter, the Petitioner threatened to kill the informant in the event she discloses anything to anyone about the incident. The informant has further stated that earlier also on 24.10.2023, the Petitioner had entered into the house of the informant and committed rape on her. 5. On the basis of the FIR, the Chhendipada P.S. conducted the investigation and finally the I.O. has filed the charge-sheet under Sections 506/450/376(1) of IPC. 6. Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State- Opposite Party. Perused the FIR, case diary as well as the statement of the witnesses and other materials placed before this Court in course of the hearing. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the informant is a major girl as she is aged about 19 years. He contended that the Petitioner and the informant belong to the nearby villages. He further contended that the informant was having relationships with different persons and that she is trying to manipulate the Petitioner by falsely implicating the Petitioner in the present crime. It was also argued that the Petitioner and the informant had a consensual relationship. He further submitted that since the marriage between the two did not materialize as both the families were not in favour of their marriage, the informant, at the instance of her family members, has lodged this FIR by falsely implicating the Petitioner in Page 2 of 6. the present case. It was also submitted that the Petitioner belongs to a poor family and that he earns his livelihood by working as a helper in a JCB machine. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and conditions as it be deemed just and proper by this Court. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that on the basis of the allegation made in the FIR, a case under the alleged Sections is well made out against the present Petitioner. He further submitted that the prosecution case has also been corroborated by the statement of the witnesses and that there are ample materials to establish the involvement of the informant in the present crime. Finally, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the event, the Petitioner is released on bail there is every likelihood that he might harass, threaten or, terrorize not only the informant and but also her family members and other prosecution witnesses who are yet to be examined from the side of the prosecution in the trial. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail application of the Petitioner does not deserve consideration of this court, at this stage of the trial. 9. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the I.O. in the brief facts of the case has categorically stated that the Board Certificate of the informant was seized which reveals that the Date of Birth of the informant is 18.09.2004. Therefore, it has been concluded by the I.O. that the informant was a major at the time of incident. He has also stated that during investigation it was ascertained that the victim/informant and the Petitioner had a love affair. It has also been stated that the victim/informant proposed to the Petitioner for marriage, however, the accused-Petitioner did not agree for such marriage. When Page 3 of 6. the Petitioner refused to marry the informant, the informant/victim did not permit the Petitioner to keep any sexual relationship with her. However, on 24.10.2023 in the evening at about 7 P.M., the Petitioner went to the house of the victim and kept physical relationship with her without her consent. Although, the parents of the victim approached the Village Panch for redressal of their grievance, the same could not be resolved by the Village Panch. The forwarding report also reveals a similar story. 10. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is revealed that most of the witnesses have stated that the Petitioner had a love affair with the victim/informant. On 24.10.2023, when the Petitioner went to the house of the informant/victim, the maternal aunt of the Petitioner came to the house of the informant and forcibly took away the Petitioner. Further, the witnesses have also stated that although both the parties were in a love relationship, however, the maternal aunt of the Petitioner did not agree to such marriage proposal. One Lima Majhi, who happens to be the sister of the informant and one Uma Majhi, who happens to be the mother of the informant, have also stated about the love relationship between the two. Furthermore, they have also stated that the maternal aunt of the Petitioner was not in favour of their marriage, therefore, the marriage did not take place. 11. The statement of the victim/informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate further reveals that on 06.11.2023, in the evening, the Petitioner went to the house of the informant and committed rape of her. Thereafter, the Petitioner threatened her and told her not to disclose the incident to anyone. It was further stated that on 24.10.2023 also the Petitioner went to the Page 4 of 6. house of the informant and committed rape on her. Thereafter, she informed her mother and both went to the police station to lodge the report before the police. The victim/informant in this case has been examined medically on police requisition. Her medical examination report annexed to the case diary reveals that no bodily injury was found on any part of the body of the victim. The examination of the private parts of the victim does not disclose any sign and/or symptom of recent sexual intercourse. Therefore, it appears that the medical evidence does not support the allegation made by the informant/victim in both the FIR as well as in her statement. Having said that, this Court is also aware of the fact that the Petitioner can still be convicted on the basis of the unimpeachable evidence of the informant/victim. 12. On a careful analysis of the entire factual background of the present case and further taking into consideration the statement of the witnesses as well as the medical evidence and, the fact that the Petitioner and the informant were in a love relationship and, the fact that the informant is a major girl, it appears that the allegation with regard to the rape can only be established in course of the trial by adducing oral evidence. 13. On the conspectus of the surrounding facts and circumstances as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the final charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to the Petitioner furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to the following terms and conditions:- Page 5 of 6. i) while on bail the petitioner shall not make any attempt to tamper with any prosecution evidence; ii) shall not harass, threaten, terrorize and influence the informant/victim and her family members or any of the prosecution witnesses; iii) shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed without fail; iv) shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin over the matter till the trial is over without specific permission of the trial Court; v) shall stay away from the victim/informant till the conclusion of the trial and shall make no attempt to contact the victim in any manner whatsoever; and vi) shall not defame the victim/informant in any manner whatsoever including via social media; Violation of any of the conditions mentioned hereinabove shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioner. 14. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the bail application stands allowed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 6 of 6. Date: 30-May-2024 16:50:22