The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3400 of 2024 Tinu Digal 1) State Of Odisha 2) Trupti Nayak ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Susanta Kumar Lenka -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. -
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 02.08.2024 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with Balliguda P.S.Case No.67 of 2024 corresponding to C.T.Case No.95 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Balliguda for alleged commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. That the prosecution case as revealed from the F.I.R. is that the informant working as a Covid-19 ANM at CHC Barakhama. During that time she had love relationship with the petitioner who was also working as a Sweeper Supervisor of Page 1 of 5. that CHC. The petitioner kept repeated physical relation with the informant against her will and giving assurance of marriage. They were live in relationship at Bandhasahi, Balliguda by taking a rented house for all most two years from April 2020 to February, 2022. At the relevant time, both of them were frequently visiting to parental house of the petitioner. The petitioner took Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant. The informant gave him Rs.2,00,000/- on good faith. Subsequently, the petitioner had also love affairs with one Nikhita Digal, daughter of Bhadraba Digal of Mundasahi. The parents of the petitioner started torturing and left her. Now the petitioner has love relationship with Nikhita. And the latter threatening to the informant for dire consequence. The petitioner had made a promise to refund of money by 2023. Hence, the informant has filed the present F.I.R. against the present Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is languishing in custody since 13.02.2024. He further contended that the investigation has been concluded and final Charge Sheet has been filed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the prosecution case, submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the informant. He further contended that both the Petitioner and the informant are neighbour and they were working in CHC Barakhama. While working as such, they fell in love and were in love in relationship with the consent of both. He further contended that the informant lost her contractual job and went to her home. While staying together, learned counsel for the Petitioner Page 2 of 5. submitted that the Petitioner has taken a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant of out of which the Petitioner has already returned Rs.80,000/- to the informant and since the Petitioner did not return the balance amount, the present case has been filed by the informant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant to recover the balance amount. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R.is clearly made out against the Petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. submitted that the victim has stated that the Petitioner has kept physical relationship with the informant without her consent. So far as monetary transaction is concerned, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioner has taken money from the informant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- by using ATM card of the informant. On such ground, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected. 7. Perused the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C by the learned magistrate. On perusal of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, this Court observes that the informant was working as ANM in CHC, Barakhama wherein the Petitioner was also working. Thereafter, their relationship developed in the year 2020 and the intention shows that the Petitioner and the informant were in live in Page 3 of 5. relationship. It further appears that the physical relationship was made during such live in relationship. During such relationship the Petitioner taken a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant. However, money has not been returned by the Petitioner despite demand by the informant. 8. On careful consideration of the materials on record and in view of the relationship of the Petitioner and the informant and that both are major and with regard to monetary transaction, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has taken money from the informant and did not return the same to the informant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to return the balance amount provided some time is allowed to the Petitioner. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the materials on record as well as the surrounding facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner with certain conditions and it is directed that let the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter subject to the following terms and conditions: I) ii) he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date without fail; shall return Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) to the informant at the time of release on bail and thereafter the balance amount in two equal monthly instalment of Rs.35,000/-( Rupees Thirty Page 4 of 5. five thousand) each; iii) While on bail shall not influence, harass, threaten or terrorise the informant in any manner whatsoever. Violation of conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Aug-2024 17:26:25