The court dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused in a rape case. It rejected the argument that unreliability of the victim's statement, unsupported by a medical report, justified bail in a heinous offence. Instead, the court ordered the trial to be expedited.
Prayer for release on bail rejected; trial directed to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BLAPL No.3534 of 2017
03. 15.07.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner a
nd the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner being in custody in S.T. Case No.50 of 2016 (T), arising out of Harabha
nga P.S. Case No.03 of 2016, corresponding to C.T. No.39 of 2016, pending in the court of lear
ned Special Track Court, Boudh, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences
alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 342/ 376/ 506 of the I.P.C.
Perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
It appears that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
has categorically stated the petitioner to be the perpetrator of the crime.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the statement of the victim is n
ot supported by the medical report, such statement is required to be taken with a pinch of sal
t in a case under Section 376 of the I.P.C. In such premises, the petitioner be released on ba
il.
However, learned counsel for the State makes objection to the prayer for bail, stating
that the offence alleged is heinous in nature and on the sole testimony of the victim, a pros
ecution can be launched.
The offence alleged is heinous and serious in nature and prescribes stringent punishme
nt. The victim clearly implicates the petitioner to be the perpetrator of the crime. Taking in
to consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the victim being not in consonan
ce with the medical report, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
I would, therefore, reject the prayer made by the petitioner for his release on bail.
However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court is di
rected to expedite the trial in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid order, this BLAPL stands disposed of being dismissed.
BJ
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to release on bail given the discrepancy between the victim's statement and the medical report in a heinous offence under Section 376 IPC.
Whether bail can be granted in a case where the victim's statement not corroborated by medical evidence is the sole basis for prosecution.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial in view of the serious nature of the offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State
BJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court