Ananta Sahu State of Odisha … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 10182 of 2023 Ananta Sahu State of Odisha ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Ms. Khusbu Panigrahi, Adv. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. 04.
Decision
ORDER 22.11.2023 (Through hybrid mode) 1. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Khantapada P.S. Case No.72 of 2021 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 218 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (R), Balasore . Chargesheet dated 19.05.2023 has been submitted against him under Section – 376( 3), 354- B , 323, 506 I.P.C showing the petitioner as an absconder. 2. Ms. Khusbu Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after commitment, the case is pending before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 428 of 2023. 3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Bail Application No. 919 of 2023. 4. The prosecution case in brief as per the FIR is that the petitioner is a gunda type person. During absence of her husband , he has entered her house and raped her. Putting a bhujali at her neck , he had threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would kill her and also kill her husband and child. After she informed her husband, they were staying in a state of fear. On the night of Page 1 of 4 27.02.2021 at about 7.00 pm at the point of bhujali, he tried to rape her. When she resisted, he dealt kicks and fist blows on her and tried to abduct her. When she started screaming, he got annoyed and picked up an iron rod and hit her on her head and back and pushed her on the chest and she fell down naked. He dragged her by her hair and dealt a kick on her private part .When villagers arrived at the spot hearing her screams, he ran away. While leaving, he brandished the bhujali and threatened that if she filed any case, he killed them with the bhujali. On receiving information, her husband had come and taken her to Soro hospital for treatment. As the villagers stopped them saying that they would discuss the matter, there was delay in lodging FIR. 5. Ms. Khusbu Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations have been made against the petitioner as the informant had borrowed money from him and when he asked for return of the money, she lodged the FIR making false allegations against him. She further submits that there is inconsistency between the contents of the F.I.R. and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the F.I.R. she has stated that she had been raped earlier but in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., she had made allegations that on 27.02.2021, the petitioner apart from assaulting her has also raped her. There is eight days delay in lodging FIR as the alleged the incident took place on 27.02.2021 and F.I.R. has been registered on 07.03.2021. The informant has stated in the FIR that there was delay as the villagers wanted to have a discussion. But there has been no village meeting and no discussion. The husband of the petitioner has attributed the delay due to the threats of the petitioner, to kill them . She has also submitted that the informant alleged that she had been severely assaulted by the petitioner with iron rod and has sustained injuries and was taken to Soro hospital for treatment by her husband on 28.02.2021, but no Page 2 of 4 medical report or prescription is available in the case record. Her medical examination report does not indicate any external injury on her body or any signs and symptoms of forcible sexual intercourse. 6. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that from the statements of the victim in the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., the allegations under Sections 376, 354-B, 323, 506 of IPC are clearly made out against the petitioner. Her statements are corroborated by the statement of her husband of the informant as well as the co-villagers who arrived at the spot on hearing her screams in material particulars. The villagers have stated that when they reached the spot on hearing her screams, they found her lying half naked outside her house and on being asked she told them that she had been raped by the accused who had also beaten her. As the victim has been examined on 08.03.2021, non detection of external injuries on the body of the victim is not surprising. As she is a married lady, absence of injuries on her private part is also not surprising. He further submits that minor discrepancies in the statements are natural and their effect is to be considered at the time of trial. 7. Perusal of the bail application reveals that at paragraph 12, it has been stated that the reason for false implication of the petitioner is that the informant –victim has a grocery shop from where the petitioner is used to purchase grocery articles for his family members and as the petitioner had not paid the arrear to the informant and had asked for time for two months, the informant being aggrieved has lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner to take revenge against him. Perusal of the chargesheet reveals that FIR has been registered on 07.03.2021. The petitioner could not be arrested during investigation for which chargesheet dated 19.05.2023 has been submitted against him on showing him as an absconder. He had earlier filed ABLPL No. 4999 of Page 3 of 4 2021 and CRLMC No. 1033 of 2023 before this Court . 8. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the submission of the counsel, I am of the view that the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to discrepancy in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. do not falsify the allegations against him. Such contentions can be considered by the learned trial court at the time of trial. 9. Similarly, the effect of delay in lodging the F.I.R. is a point to be considered by the learned trial court as the petitioner and her husband have given different reasons for delay in lodging FIR. That contention again is best left for consideration the learned trial court during the trial. 10. In view of the nature of allegations against the petitioner which find support from the statements of the husband of the victim and the villagers recorded under Section- 161 Cr.P.C, I do not consider this to be a fit case to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The prayer for bail is rejected. 11. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. 12. As Ms. Khusbu Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been committed in the meanwhile, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the learned court below for bail afresh after examination of the victim lady and her husband. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. puspa …………………… (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 26-Nov-2023 17:54:51 Page 4 of 4