Allowed

Gobinda Mohanta v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC20 Jul 2018BLAPL/8745/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a POCSO case involving rape and death, the Special Court considered the nature of charges and the period of detention. The court acquitted the accused of the death charge based on lack of material but granted bail for other offences.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two local solvent sureties each for Rs. 20,000.

Gobinda Mohanta Vs State of Orissa — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

BLAPL No. 8745 of 2017

¶2

02 20.07.2018

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶4

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Kankadahad P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017 corresponding to C.T. Special (POCSO) Case No. 21 of 2017 pending in Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal for offences punishable under sections 365/376(2)(f)(m) (n)/304 of the Indian Penal Code and section 12 of the POCSO Act and sections 3(1)/3(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST(PA) Act.

¶5

The petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal which was rejected on 31.10.2017.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.06.2017 and though initially the case was registered under sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act and 3(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST (PA) Act but after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under sections 365/376(2)(f)(m)(n)/304 of the Indian Penal Code, section 12 of the POCSO Act and sections 3(1)/3(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST(POA) Act. It is further contended that the deceased stated to have made some disclosure statement before two witnesses namely, Sarojini Behera and Rajani Behera, on the basis of which the petitioner has been implicated in the case.

¶7

¶8

It is contended that there is absolutely no material relating to commission of offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and it is the disclosure statement of the deceased that while she and the petitioner were moving in a motorcycle, they took some food from the street side vendor and ultimately the deceased returned back on 23.05.2017 and then she fell ill and was taken to the hospital and she expired on 02.06.2017 and no poison could be detected in the viscera. It is further submitted that the materials available on record indicate that the deceased was aged more than 18 years and there is no such clinching material in order to attract the ingredients of the offences under sections 365/ 376(2)(f)(m)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produced the case diary and placed the statements of Sarojini Dehury as well as Rajani Dehury before whom the deceased stated against the petitioner to have taken her in a motorcycle and committed rape during the night in a jungle.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any specific material relating to the offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and the surrounding circumstances

under which the other offences alleged to have taken place and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶15

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/(rupees twenty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.

¶16

Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.

¶17

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶18

………………… S.K.Sahoo,J.

¶19

¶20

¶21

Gobinda Mohanta v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobinda Mohanta v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chiknu Chasa Vs State of Odisha

Dharmendra Kumar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Orissa

Kailash Challan Vs State of Odisha

Jayakrushna Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Mintu Ray@Rai Vs State of Odisha