The Single Judge rejected an appeal against the rejection of a bail application. The court held that considering the victim's age, implication of rape, and gravity of the offence, the appellant could not be released on bail.
The prayer for bail stands rejected; the CRLA is disposed of.
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.
CRLA No. 370 of 2019
Kanta @ Srukanta Putel … Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
2. Surendra Bag … Respondents
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.
This is an appeal under section 14-A of S.C. & S.T. (POA) Amendment Act, 2016 in connection with Special G.R. Case No. 02 of 2017 arising out of Loisingha P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court (POCSO Act), Balangir for offences punishable under sections 363/376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act.
The appellant moved an application for bail before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cumSpecial Court (POCSO Act), Balangir which was rejected on 27.08.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that earlier bail application of the appellant in BLAPL No.2788 of 2017 was disposed of on 07.11.2017 as withdrawn. The appellant is in judicial custody since 05.01.2017 and in the meantime, trial has already commenced and
2
number of witnesses including the victim has been examined in the trial Court. He further submitted that the statement of the victim before the police as well as before the Magistrate are contradictory to each other and at the first instance, the victim has not stated about the commission of rape on her by the appellant before the informant. He further submitted that the medical examination report of the victim reveals that there was no bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and there was also no sign and symptoms of sexual intercourse and the victim was accustomed to regular sexual intercourse and no foreign body was found in the vaginal swab and the victim’s age was in between fifteen to seventeen years. He further submitted that there is no chance of absconding of the appellant and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are no such glaring inconsistencies in the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and the victim has been examined before the trial Court as P.W.2 and supported the prosecution case. Admittedly the victim was minor when the occurrence took place on 01.01.2017 inasmuch as the school admission register indicates the date of birth of the victim to be 24.04.2000. He further submitted that the victim has specifically stated about the commission of rape on her by the appellant. It is further submitted that
3
though in the cross-examination, some confrontations have been made relating to her previous statement before police but those contradictions are not correct and in fact, the victim has stated about the commission of rape before police. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that in the first information report also the informant, who is the cousin brother of the victim has stated that the victim disclosed before him about the commission of rape on her by the appellant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that in view of the punishment prescribed for the offences, the appellant should not be released on bail.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the age of the victim at the time of occurrence, the statement of the victim implicating the appellant in the commission of rape, the nature and gravity of the accusation and further taking into account the punishment prescribed for the offences, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.
Accordingly, the CRLA is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
S.K. Sahoo, J.
…………………..……
RKM
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to release on bail in an appeal against a bail rejection order in a POCSO case.
Whether the contradictions in the victim's statement and lack of forensic evidence negate the gravity of the accused's offence.
Whether the bail application should be allowed considering the age of the victim and the nature of the charges.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Kanta @ Srukanta Putel
State of Odisha
Surendra Bag
S.K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
