Dismissed

Faiz Rahman v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 May 2020BLAPL/1953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for bail in a POCSO case. The High Court noted two prior rejections. Due to unexamined victims and lockdown constraints preventing trial witness examination, the Court denied bail, directing the petitioner to apply to the trial court for renewal after victim examinations are completed.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayed for was not granted; petitioner directed to renew application before the learned trial Court after all minor victims are examined.

Faiz Rahman Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

BLAPL No.1953 of 2020

¶2

Faiz Rahman

¶3

�� Petitioner -Versus-

¶4

State of Odisha �� Opp. Party

¶5

07.05.2020

¶6

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

¶7

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Special (POCSO) Case No.79 of 2018 arising out of Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. Case No.539 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Special Court (POCSO), Dhenkanal for commission of offences punishable under sections 354-(A)/341/323/294/506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶8

It appears that earlier two petitions of the petitioner have been rejected by this Court in BLAPL No.7760 of 2018 vide order dated 22.02.2019 and BLAPL No.4856 of 2019 vide order dated 28.08.2019.

¶9

In the rejection order dated 27.11.2019, the learned trial Court has mentioned that out of thirteen minor boarders who have alleged sexual harassment charges against the petitioner, only five minor boarders have been examined.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the said rejection order, two more victims have already been examined in the learned trial Court but the rest of the victims have not yet turned up to give their evidence in spite of repeated summons and at present

¶11

¶12

in view of the prevailing lockdown situation on account of Covid-19 cases, witnesses are not summoned by the learned trial Court to give their evidence and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered and at least the petitioner may be granted interim bail.

¶13

Since twice earlier bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected and the minor victims are yet to be examined in the learned trial Court, in view of the nature and gravity of the accusation, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail, I direct that the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court after examination of all the left out minor victims. Immediately after the normal Court work starts, the learned trial Court shall make every endeavour to examine those minor victims at the first instance.

¶14

Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.

¶15

A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.

¶16

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

¶17

S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶18

¶19

Faiz Rahman v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiz Rahman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surama Khadanga Vs State of Odisha

Ratnakar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Chagula @ Manoj Jena @ Manoj Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Krushna Das Vs State of Orissa