Dismissed

Santosh Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Oct 2020CRLA/157/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, single judge, rejected a bail application under Section 14-A of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 in a POCSO and rape case, citing the gravity of the charge and the victim's identifiable statement, though the appellant was permitted to renew prayer post-victim examination.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Leave to Appeal dismissed; liberty to renew bail prayer after victim examination in trial court.

Santosh Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CRLA No.157 of 2020

¶2

Santosh Pradhan �� Appellant -Versus1. State of Odisha 2. Priyadarsini Behera �� Respondents

¶3

04. 15.10.2020

¶4

The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶5

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

¶6

This is an appeal under section 14-A of S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act, 1989 in connection with Special Case No.1 of 2020 arising out of Harabhanga P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cumSpecial Judge, Boudh for offences punishable under sections 376-D/363 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act.

¶7

The appellant moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Boudh which was rejected on 17.02.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the notice has been made sufficient on the informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident in question took place on 05.01.2020 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.01.2020 and the appellant is in judicial custody since 09.01.2020 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 376-D/363 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act and section

¶10

¶11

3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act. He further submitted that the victim has not disclosed immediately before her mother about the commission of rape but at a belated stage, the case has been foisted and therefore, the bail application of the appellant may be favourably considered.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand placed the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim in which she has named the appellant as well as the co-accused to have committed rape on her and the date of birth of the victim is 02.04.2002 and therefore, the victim was minor as on date of occurrence.

¶13

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the nature and gravity of the accusation, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the CRLA stands rejected.

¶15

However, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the victim in the trial Court.

¶16

Accordingly, the CRLA is disposed of.

¶17

S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶18

Sisir

¶19

Santosh Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Pradhan 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

Muna @ Rakesh Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Janmajay Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Balaram Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Pattnayak Vs State of Odisha

Katika Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Rajeev Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha