The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6636 of 2024 (An application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) Satrughan Das @ Akash @ Dasia ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv.– Mr. Braja Prasad Tripathy -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC --------------- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA :: Date of order : 29.10.2024 Date of hearing : 24.09.2024 A.K. Mohapatra, J. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in BLAPL No.720 of 2024 thereby rejecting Petitioner’s application for grant of regular bail. Page 1 of 10 2. Bidanasi No.136 of 2024 was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Informant alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/354-A/354- D/294/506/509 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 66(E)/67/67- A of the Information and Technology Act. The above noted P.S. Case corresponds to G.R. Case No.462 of 2024 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog Taking), Cuttack. 3. The Victim-Informant lodged the F.I.R. on 29.05.2024, thereby alleging the commission of aforesaid offences against the Petitioner. The prosecution story, as unfurled from the F.I.R., is that the Victim-Informant and the present Petitioner were studying at the same school. The Petitioner is one year senior to the Informant. Both the Petitioner and the Victim-Informant used to share a very cordial and good relationship. The Informant has further stated that due to a quarrel between her parents, she was staying with her maternal grandmother. Her maternal grandmother gave her Page 2 of 10 in marriage to one Milu Nayak and she has been blessed with two male children. The present Petitioner, who happens to be a neighbour, was frequenting the house of the Informant and was known to the Informant. During last year’s Panasankranti festival, the Petitioner came to the house of the Informant and gave her something to drink. Informant, in good faith, drank the same and thereafter, she became unconscious. After she became unconscious, the Informant was unaware of what transpired between the parties. One week thereafter, the Petitioner showed her (the informant) some obscene photographs and video recording and went ahead to threaten and blackmail her. It has also been alleged that, the petitioner took advantage of the fact that the of family members of the informant were absent, and in so doing threatened, exploited the Informant sexually and kept physical relationship with her against her wishes and desire. She has also alleged that the Petitioner had Page 3 of 10 committed rape on her by taking her to a OYO Room situated in CDA, Cuttack. She has further alleged that by circulating such private and obscene photographs, the Petitioner is not only blackmailing the Informant, but also trying to destroy the marital life of the Informant by creating a rift between the husband and wife. The informant has also expressed her apprehension with regard to the fact that the Petitioner has threatened to kill her. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the above noted Bidanasi P.S. Case was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner has been arrested and is languishing in jail custody since 29.05.2024. He further contended that the bail application of the Petitioner has been erroneously and illegally rejected by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the meantime the Page 4 of 10 investigation has progressed substantially. Therefore, the detention of the Petitioner in custody is no more required. He further contended that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent of similar nature and that he has been entangled in the present case falsely. He further submitted that since the Petitioner belongs to the locality and he does not have any criminal antecedent, there exists no possibility of his absconding from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of argument, submitted that the Petitioner and the Informant are known to each other. They both are next door neighbours. He further contended that due to a rivalry between the two families, the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the Informant. It was also contended that both the Petitioner and the Informant are married independently and are leading a Page 5 of 10 happy conjugal life. Therefore, falsely implicating the Petitioner in the present case would most definitely destroy the happy marital life of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that since the Petitioner and the Informant are known to each other, even if it is assumed that any sexual relationship was established between the two, the same was with the consent of the both the parties, given the fact that they are both consenting adult members. He further contended that the victim is aged about 26 years and that the relationship between the two is consensual. However, the Informant, under pressure from her family members, is trying to give the incident a colour of sexual exploitation. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is made out against the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further emphatically argued that in the event the Petitioner had acted in a forceful manner, without the Page 6 of 10 consent of the Informant, then the Informant, who has categorically admitted that she had gone to different places with the Petitioner, should have raised her voice to attract the attraction of the people who were present around her souhgt their help. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any stringent terms and conditions deemed proper by this court. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, seriously opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that the crime committed by the Petitioner is of heinous nature. He further submitted that the Informant is a married lady and she has been blessed with two children. Learned counsel for the State further contended that admittedly the Informant and the Petitioner are known to each other as they were studying in the same school and both are neighbours. Taking advantage of his familiarity Page 7 of 10 with and proximity to the Informant’s family, the Petitioner got access to the Informant and in the process, by betraying her trust, he has committed rape on her. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the Petitioner has not just once, but repeatedly committed rape on the informant by blackmailing, by showing her absence photos and videos, and threatening the informant. Learned counsel for the State at this stage raised serious objection to the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the relationship was consensual and that the Informant did not raise any voice or objected to the same. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submitted that since the Informant was threatened and blackmailed repeatedly, the informant was unable to provide any resistance or raise any voice against the heinous acts of the Petitioner. He further alleged that the Petitioner has not only committed the crime of rape, he has also circulated her obscene photographs on the social media Page 8 of 10 platform and also sent them to the husband of the Informant, as a result of which, the marital life of the Informant is completely destroyed. 7. On perusal of the record, this Court is of the observation that the victim, in her statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has supported the case of the prosecution. Although the record reveals that the victim denied to be medically examined, however, keeping in view the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and further taking note of the fact that the investigation in the case is still on and the final charge sheet has not been filed in the present case, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail at this juncture. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the Petitioner stands rejected with liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh bail application after filing of the charge sheet. Page 9 of 10 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the bail
Decision
application stands disposed of. Judge ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 29th October, 2024/Debasis Aech, Secretary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 29-Oct-2024 18:49:49 Page 10 of 10