Rudra Bisoy v. State of Odisha

ORDER 06.09.2024

This matter taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Even though notice has been made sufficient on the informant/respondent no.2 since 18.08.2024, nobody appears for the informant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. This is an appeal under section 14-A of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 in connection with G.R. Case No. 101 of 2023 arising out of Mohana P.S. Case No.187 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Gajapati Paralakhemundi for offences punishable under sections 294/506/376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. read with sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(v)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act and sections 66(E)/67(A) of the I.T. Act. The appellant moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Gajapati, which was rejected on

09.07.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 23.11.2023 and he has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 294/506/376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. read with sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(v)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act and sections 66(E)/67(A) of the I.T. Act. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier the appellant approached this Court for bail in CRLA No.39 of 2024, which was rejected as per order dated 21.03.2024 granting liberty to the appellant to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the victim in the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim has already been examined as P.W.1 in the learned trial Court and she stated her age to be twenty four years and she fell in love with the appellant and they were talking over phone, met each other at different places and then the appellant established sexual relationship with her in her rented house.

Learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), it appears that she is a consenting party and at this stage, when the victim has already been examined and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, the bail application of the appellant may be favourably reconsidered. Learned counsel for the State placed the paragraph no.4 of the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), which indicates that the nude photographs of the victim have been made viral. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the charge sheet which indicates that the mobile phone of the victim so also the appellant along with one chip was seized by the I.O. and the nude photographs of the victim were collected from her mobile phone. Learned counsel further argued that there is no clinching evidence relating to the commission offence under section 66(E)/67(A) of the I.T. Act. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, change in the circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application, the evidence of the victim and the period of detention of the appellant in judicial custody, I am inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and direct the appellant to be released on bail.