The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 06. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4459 of 2024 Sumit Behera State of Odisha & another -versus- …. Petitioner Ms. Sasmita Nanda, Advocate …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.R.Roul, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 04.10.2024 1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Pandapada P.S. Case No.126 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.981 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 363/323/342/34 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar in Special Case No.68 of 2023. The petitioner had approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar in Special Case No.68 of 2023 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 21.02.2024 rejected the bail application of the Page 1 of 5 petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 3. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that, on 16.09.2023, the complainant reported at Pandapada P.S. alleging that, the present petitioner took her to their house in Barbil on 04.07.2023 at 12 P.M. night on the pretext of marriage. After four days, at Mugra temple in Barbil, the petitioner put vermillion on her head. Since then, they had been staying in a rented house. Then the father and mother of her husband came and quarreled with her as a result her husband sustained head injury. Her husband told her that his parents do not agree to their marriage. So, he told her to inform her aunt. Her aunt came and discussed about the Court marriage between them. Thereafter the petitioner had been to the pond for taking bath, but he did not return to his aunt’s house. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. This matter was taken up by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 01.08.2024 and the Page 2 of 5 Coordinate Bench directed the trial Court to examine the victim as the first witness. Subsequent thereto, the victim was examined by the learned trial Court on 30.08.2024 as P.W.1. She in her testimony, has stated as under: “2. The incident took place in the year 2023. I had love affairs with Sumit Behera and with the assurance of marriage he forcibly took me from my house and kept me at Barbil and from Barbil he took me to Delhi. He kept in at Barbil in his Mamu’s house (uncle) for one day and thereafter on the next day he took me to the house of his Khudi (aunt) and kept me there for 7 to 8 days and from there he took me to Delhi and kept in in his Jiju’s house (brother- in-law) and at Delhi he kept me for 3 to 4 days. In all the three places he forcibly kept physical relation with me without my consent for number of times. 3. While we were staying at Delhi, once his mother called him over phone and told us to return home as she wanted for our marriage. Thereafter we returned to Barbil and at Barbil we stayed in the house of his friend for 2 days and after 2 days his parents came there and took us with them to their house. In his house, his mot her physically tortured me and once when she tried to throttle me his younger brother rescued me from her clutches and after knowing the same Sumit took me to Anandapur my Piusi’s house (aunt) and we stayed there for 10 to 12 days and during that period Sumit forcibly kept physical relation with me without my consent. Then he left me there and I waited him but he did not return. I called him over phone but he disconnected all the calls. Then my Piusi took me to my house and left me there and then I went to P.S. and filed this case. This is the said FIR marked as Ext.P-1/PW1. This is my signature thereon marked as Ext.P-1/PW1.” 5. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the petitioner was in relationship with the victim-prosecutrix. On the pretext of marriage, he had kept physical relationship with her. They have been living in Barbil Page 3 of 5 and thereafter in Delhi. 6. The petitioner is 20 years old whereas the victim girl is 18 years old. 7. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, which form part of the charge sheet, the nature of accusation and the age of both the victim and the accused, it can be inferred that this is neither a case of perpetration of sexual exploitation or abuse nor emotional obtrude caused to the vulnerable minor girl. Therefore, the accused-petitioner is entitled to bail. 8. Regard being had to the nature of the accusation and the period of custody of the petitioner since 12.11.2023, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. 9. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions: (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Court below, without fail, on every date of hearing; (2) He shall not influence any of the witnesses related to this case in any manner Page 4 of 5 whatsoever; and (3) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. In the event the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-Oct-2024 14:43:03 Page 5 of 5