The court refused a further adjournment to the petitioner, noting repeated delays over a year following an interim order. Based on the FIR allegations and sufficient materials regarding rape under Section 376 IPC, the Agricultural Labour Petition was rejected and the interim order vacated.
ABLAPL rejected; interim protection vacated.
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.
ABLAPL No. 17258 of 2017
Mention was made on behalf of the petitioner seeking adjournment. But, it appears that for the last five occasions at the instance of the petitioner time was granted after the petitioner availed the interim protection vide order dated 08.11.2017. In the meantime, more than one year has been passed, therefore this Court is not inclined to grant further adjournment.
Accordingly, on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR and on instruction received by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, who placed the matter that there was sufficient materials against the petitioner so far as the allegation under Section 376, IPC is concerned.
In such view of the matter, the ABLAPL stands rejected.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
Ashok
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should grant another adjournment after multiple delays by the petitioner.
Whether the ABLAPL should be rejected given sufficient materials against the petitioner under Section 376 IPC.
Whether the interim protection ordered earlier should be vacated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok
State
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
