The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------------- Manoj Kumar Hota ..…. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha …… Opp. Party ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Advocate For Petitioner For Opp. Party : Ms. Sarita Moharana, A.S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 10.01.2025 Savitri Ratho, J This is the second application of the petitioner filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Nayagarh P.S. Case No.128 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.105/267 of 2023 in the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, (Women’s Court), Nayagarh under Sections 376 (2) (n), 376 (2) (f), 323, 506 of IPC read with Section 66 (E), 67 and 67-A of the Information of Technology Act. BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 2. BLAPL No. 11211 of 2023 filed earlier by the petitioner had been dismissed on 16.10.2023 by this Court, granting liberty to him to move for bail afresh, after examination of the victim girl. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved the learned Court below for bail and his prayer has been rejected by the learned A.S.J.(W.C.), Nayagarh on 10.09.2024. 4. Perused the letter dated 04.12.2024 of the learned Senior Civil Judge -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Nayagarh where it is stated that the charge has been framed in the case under Section 376(2)(n)(f), 506 of IPC read with Sections 66(E), 67(A), 37 of the I.T. Act on 12.12.2023 and out of twenty five charge sheet witnesses, ten witnesses have been examined and the case is posted to 16.12.2024 for evidence of rest of the charge sheet witnesses. 5. The prosecution allegations in brief are that the petitioner is a Mathematics Teacher in Nayagarh Autonomous College and the informant-victim was a student of +3 Science. She was staying in a rented house and taking tuition from the petitioner at his house in Nayagarh. In March, 2021 on a Sunday after her doubt class, the petitioner forcibly raped her and clicked some nude photographs of her. Utilising these photographs, the petitioner blackmailed the BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 victim and forced her to have a sexual relationship with him. After completing her course, the victim returned to her village in Nayagarh and avoided contact with the petitioner, but he threatened her and sent her, her nude photographs through Whatsapp etc. and threatened that if she did not agree to marry him, he would circulate the photographs when the informant-victim did not respond to his messages and switched off her mobile phone, the petitioner gave the same threat to her parents. He
Legal Reasoning
ultimately circulated these photographs for which the FIR was lodged on 22.07.2023 by the victim. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2023. He has submitted that the evidence of P.W.7 in Court contradicts her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that from a perusal of her cross-examination, it would be apparent that the Petitioner and victim were in a consensual relationship and she was now stating falsehood as she has admitted in her cross-examination that there was a WhatsApp group in which the petitioner used to post messages regarding date and time of the tuition class for his students but she has not produced any message sent by him for BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 attending class at the alleged date and time of occurrence. He further submitted that the victim has alleged that the first occurrence took place on March, 2021, but for more than two years, she has attended the tuition classes and pursued her +3 course and secured first division in all her examinations which was not possible if she was being raped and harassed by the accused. He further submitted that during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the victim had gone to the doctor. Had she been raped by the accused, she should have informed the doctor which she admits she has not done. He further submits that P.W.4 - father of the victim has stated that he had handed over the photographs which have allegedly been sent by the petitioner to the police to him and the victim over Instagram and WhatsApp to the police, but she has admitted in Court that the same are not available in the Court. He also submits that as the petitioner is in custody for about one and half and trial is still pending, he may be released on bail as his right to speedy trial has been violated. 7. Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the case is in the midst of trial and the I.O. is yet to be examined. The victim and her parents have supported the prosecution case and during BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 investigation incriminatory obscene photographs, DVD plates and messages have been seized. The circumstances of the seizure has been mentioned in the seizure lists. The mobile phones to which the photos were sent, have also been seized. She also submitted that while the victim is aged about 20 years, the petitioner who was her tuition lecturer is almost double her age and has misused his position to compel the victim to have sexual relations with him and when she tried to avoid him, he has circulated her intimate pictures. His conduct being heinous, he does not deserve to be granted bail. She finally submits that since the case is in the midst of trial, the evidence of the victim should not be analysed as that may influence the learned Trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of the depositions of witnesses, who have been examined in the trial and this includes the victim-P.W.7, her father-P.W. 4 and her mother- P.W.5. 9. 10. I have gone through the depositions of P.W.4, 5 and 7. In a recent decision, X vs. State of Rajasthan : 2024 INSC 909, in an application filed for cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a case under Section 376-D and Section 342 of IPC, the Supreme Court has held as follows : BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 11. P.W.7 the victim has supported the prosecution case and while her examination-in-chief consists of seven paragraphs, she has stood her ground during protracted cross-examination where she has been asked thirty four questions by the learned defence counsel. 12. Minute threadbare examination of evidence of the victim at this stage by this Court is not warranted as that is the duty of the learned trial Court and may influence the learned trial Court. 13. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, his age and the age of the victim, his position at the time of occurrence (he was a lecturer and the victim was a student going to him for tuition), I do not consider this to be a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. 14. As regards the submission that the petitioner should be released on bail on the ground of infringement of his right to speedy trial, I find that the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2023. Considering the punishment prescribed for the offences he is alleged to have committed and the period he has remained in custody, I am not satisfied that there has been violation BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 of Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to direct for his release on bail on that ground at this stage. 15. 16. The BLAPL is dismissed. As the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2023, the learned trial Court is requested to make an endeavour to complete the trial by the end of June, 2025. 17. It is open to the petitioner to move for bail afresh if the trial is not completed by the end of June 2025. 18. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith by the Registry. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 10th January, 2025. S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2025 16:12:34 BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 8 of 8