The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6130 of 2024 Satyanarayan Mishra ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. – Mr.Durga Prasad Nanda, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.L.N.Rayatsingh, Advocate Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr.Surya Kanta Parhi, A.S.C. Mr.Akshaya Kumar Pandey, Adv. for O.P.-2 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 07.03.2025 Order No. 10. 1. This is an application for Regular Bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of Salepur P.S. Case No.13 of 2024 which corresponds to Special G.R. Case No.10 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Ad hoc A.D.J.-cum-F.T.S.C.-I, Cuttack for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(3)/376(2)(n)/343 of the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Page 1 of 8. (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim lodged the complaint before the Salepur P.S. inter alia alleging therein that after the death of her father, her mother was working as a maid servant in the house of the present Petitioner. Both the victim and her mother were residing in the house of the Petitioner. Thereafter, her mother left the house of the Petitioner in connection with the studies of her son (the brother of the victim), leaving the victim behind at the Petitioner’s house to do the household work. As a result, it was the victim that used to do all the household work at the residence of the Petitioner and for the service rendered by the victim, her mother used to get monthly remuneration of Rs.2,000/-. While staying in the house of the Petitioner, the Petitioner used to ill-treat the victim. The victim used to sleep in the room in the ground-floor of the house and the Petitioner would come to her room and against the wishes of the victim, he used to kiss and molest her. He also used to touch her private parts. Although the victim used to resist such conduct of the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner continued to sexually harass her. She has further stated that the petitioner had also kept physical relationship with the victim against her will. 3. Eventually, the victim was rescued by a Child Welfare Officer. Thereafter, a report has been lodged before the Salepur P.S. for commission of offences as has been indicated hereinabove. Page 2 of 8. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party and learned counsel for the Victim. Perused the bail application, the case diary including the statement of the witnesses as well as other materials placed on record.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr.D.P.Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the Petitioner is a retired Police Officer and is aged about 72 years. He further contended that there is no basis whatsoever for the allegation against the present Petitioner and that the present F.I.R. has been registered by making false and improbable allegations. 6. Mr.Nanda, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the 164 statement of the victim along with her deposition have also been recorded in the meantime. He further submitted that the Petitioner was staying in his village residence only occasionally during the harvesting season and he used to stay in Cuttack most of the time. He further contended that considering the plight of the victim and her mother, the Petitioner had given shelter to the victim’s family. Furthermore, the Petitioner had a long standing civil dispute with his neighbor and that the victim was frequently visiting the house of the neighbor, who had brain washed the victim. As a result of which, the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, further referring Page 3 of 8. to the statement of the victim and her deposition, contended that the victim has not clearly stated as to whether the petitioner has committed rape on her. Moreover, taking into consideration the allegations made against the Petitioner, he further submitted that at best a case under Section 354 of the I.P.C can be said to be made out against the present petitioner. 7. In the course of his argument, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the medical examination report of the victim and contended before this Court that the medical examination which was conducted on the very next day the victim was rescued, reveals that there are no bodily injuries suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse. It further reveals that there are no signs or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse and that the age of the victim would be around 14 years. Moreover, the medical examination report of the accused-petitioner reveals that the semen of the accused could not be collected because the accused could not ejaculate and that there was no erection in his penis. Additionally, the Medical Officer conducting examination on the accused has opined that there is no sign or symptom of recent sexual assault. The Medical Officer has given a specific observation to the effect that the accused is not able to erect his penis and ejaculate. On the basis of the aforesaid material, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that neither the victim was sexually assaulted/ abused nor is the accused-Petitioner capable of having any sexual intercourse. Therefore, the possibility that the accused-petitioner committed Page 4 of 8. rape on the victim is highly improbable, and such improbability is supported by medical evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the petitioner on bail. At the outset, learned counsel for the State contended that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is heinous in nature. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the present petitioner. He further contended that the statement of the victim as well as her deposition recorded by the Court clearly makes out an offence of commission rape against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the State further expressed his apprehension with regard to the fact that in the event the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that the Petitioner might abscond which would eventually cause delay in conclusion of the trial. He further contended that although the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution, however, the statement of the victim cannot be simply brushed aside considering the fact that the victim is a minor girl. On such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail application of the petitioner be rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the Victim on the other hand contended that the victim is aged about 14 years and at present she is staying in a child welfare home at Satyabhamapur, Salepur, Cuttack. It was stated that the victim was tortured physically and mentally and that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the Petitioner. Although the victim reported the matter to her mother, she did not take any step. Thereafter, the Page 5 of 8. elder sister of the victim, who is staying in Mumbai, came to the rescue of the victim with the help of the CWC staff and police team and thereafter, the victim was rescued from the house of the present petitioner. With regard to the medical examination report of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Victim submitted that so far the ground of impotency is concerned, the same is a temporary condition and can be influenced by various factors. Therefore, the inability to have an erection at the time of the test does not conclusively prove the fact that the Petitioner was impotent and as such was incapable of having sexual intercourse. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Victim laid much emphasis on the statement of the victim to establish the allegation that the Petitioner had committed rape on the victim. Finally, learned counsel for the Victim expresses his apprehension by stating that the petitioner is a retired Police officer, as such he is capable of influencing and terrorizing the victim. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the Victim submitted that the release of the Petitioner at this stage would be detrimental to a free and fair trial and accordingly, it was prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be rejected at this stage. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the counsels, further keeping in view the period of detention as well as the fact that the victim has already been examined and her deposition has already been recorded, further taking note of the fact that the Medical Officer has given a Page 6 of 8. specific observation that the accused-Petitioner is unable to erect his penis and ejaculate this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent terms and conditions. 11. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for 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 conditions:- I. shall not indulge in any criminal activities while on bail; II. shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed without fail, unless his appearance is dispensed with by the trial court; III. shall not harass, threaten or terrorize the victim and her family members in any manner whatsoever; IV. shall not make any attempt to contact with the victim and her family members, in any manner whatsoever; V. shall not make any attempt to influence or gain over the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever; and Page 7 of 8. VI. shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the trial court. Violation of any of the above-mentioned conditions shall entail an automatic cancellation of the bail.
Decision
12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 8 of 8. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Mar-2025 14:10:47