Allowed

Bikash Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Apr 2019ABLAPL/790/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed pre-arrest bail to petitioner implicated in IPC 506/376/498 offences. Despite heinous allegations, release granted as no evidence suggests hindrance to investigation, chance of absconding, or adverse public interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on pre-arrest bail; subsequent arresting officer to release on bail terms including cooperation with investigation.

Bikash Chandra Das Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL No.790 of 2019

¶2

06. 24.04.2019

¶3

The petitioner in this case having been implicated in Dhamnagar P.S. Case No.201 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.395 of 2018, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 506/376/493 of IPC, has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

¶4

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

¶5

The allegation made by the victim against the petitioner is that on 08.11.2018 at 9.30 A.M. while she was proceeding to her friend’s house at Nandipur by walking, the petitioner, who was proceeding in a motorcycle, accosted with her and knowing that she was going to her friend’s house at Nandipur, persuaded her to accompany him in his motorcycle as pillion rider, so that he can drop her in a nearby place of her friend’s house as he was proceeding in that direction. Believing such words of the petitioner, the victim stated to have accompanied her in his motorcycle but the petitioner did not drop her in the destination as stated and took her to Bhubaneswar, where he took her to a Mall for shopping and purchased some articles for her and kept her in a hotel, where he stated to have had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on protest of the victim, he promised her to marry and took her in flight to Gauhati and therefrom to Bagdogra and from Bagdogra they went to Darjeeling where they stayed in a hotel for some days, where he again had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent and brought her back in the flight again to Bhubaneswar and drop her in a place near her village. During their such visit, the petitioner stated to have kept the photographs of their intimate moment,

¶6

¶7

extending threat and coercion and blackmailing her, hence she lodged the report.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the narration of fact would go to show that the victim, admittedly a major, had accompanied the petitioner in her own volition and proceeded with him from place to place, but as the same is without the consent of her parents, she has raised false allegations against him being guided by the instinct self preservation. The same is apparent from the fact that the victim had made no grievance while he was staying in the hotel at Bhubaneswar, so also she had no grievance in different Airports before the security personnel though then she was independent from the petitioner during security check-up as the lady personnel supposed to have security check in different line meant for women and then the petitioner was not near her but proceeded with her to Darjeeling and stayed in the hotel and came back. Thereafter, the aforesaid allegation has been made which speaks volume about the veracity of the same. No doubt, a detailed appreciation of the evidence in a bail application is not permissible, but the nature and character of evidence as well the circumstances in which the offence alleged to have been committed having a bearing in grant of bail and there being nothing on record indicating the fact that the petitioner shall be hindrance to an independent investigation inasmuch as he is not influential person and has no chance of abscondance being a permanent resident of Odisha having his moors in the society and in the meanwhile also the victim stated to have again went with the present petitioner, petitioner’s prayer for pre-arrest bail deserves to be allowed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that Case Diary does not reveal that once more the victim has

¶10

¶11

accompanied the petitioner after the said incident in her own volition, but the allegation reveals that the petitioner giving the promise to marry persuaded her to accompany him to different places and had sex with her forcibly and without keeping his promise, he stated to have left her and thereafter extending threat and blackmailing her, even if it is believed that the second time she accompanied the petitioner that must have been for such threat and coercion and as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail, moreso when appreciation of evidence is not permissible and offence alleged against him is heinous and serious in nature.

¶12

Before addressing the contention of the parties on the merit of the prayer made for grant of pre-arrest bail, it would be apposite to mention here that the law is well settled that in a petition for bail/pre-arrest bail, a detailed documentation of the evidence/appreciation of the materials on record is impermissible as that would tantamount to pre-judging the case and prejudicial to the interest of the parties, but the heinousness and seriousness of the offence, nature and character of the evidence appearing against the petitioner, circumstances in which the offence stated to have been committed, the punishment provided on conviction and also the impact of the petitioner being at large to the further investigation or a fair trial, his availability for trial besides the larger public interest have a bearing for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶13

Keeping in mind when the case at hand is addressed, no doubt in this case the offences have been alleged against the petitioner are heinous and serious which provided stringent punishment, but looking into the nature and character of evidence, circumstances in which the offences stated to have been committed and no material being there indicating the fact

¶14

¶15

that release of the petitioner on pre-arrest bail shall have any adverse impact to the further investigation or a fair trial so also nothing being there indicating the fact that he shall abscond and for his release is any way prejudicial to the larger public interest, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on pre-arrest bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he may deem just and proper including the condition that petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶17

With the aforesaid order, the ABLAPL stands disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

…………………..

¶20

Bikash Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Chandra Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Charan Dhir Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Tapas Samal Vs State of Odisha

Chitaranjan Das Vs State of Odisha

Subash Chandra Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Arun Kumar Swain Vs State of Orissa