Partly allowed

Lilu@ Abhisek Senapati v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Aug 2021BLAPL/122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a bail application under Cr.P.C. 439 in a POCSO case, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and examined the victim first. It held that bail would be reconsidered after the victim's statement is recorded.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after the examination of the victim in the trial court. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Lilu@ Abhisek Senapati Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 122 of 2021

¶3

Lilu @ Abhisek Senapati …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha 2. Jitendra Nayak …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. D.K. Pani Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO ORDER Order No. 17.08.2021 06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Learned counsel for the State on instruction submitted that the notice on the informant is sufficient. None appears on behalf of the informant. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶8

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.21 of 2020 arising out of Baliguda P.S. Case No.158 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Phulbani for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n)/376(3)/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶9

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by

¶10

the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Phulbani vide order dated 23.12.2020.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.09.2020 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 376(2)(n)/376(3)/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act. He further submitted that the victim appears to be a consenting party and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and he placed the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim. From the case record, it appears that the victim is aged about fifteen years at the time of occurrence and the victim stated that the petitioner kept physical relationship with her on two occasions giving assurance of marriage.

¶13

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of accusation against the petitioner, the age of the victim at the time of occurrence and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, at this stage, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail, but taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I direct the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and steps shall be taken for examination of the victim at the first instance. The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the victim in the trial Court.

¶14

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

A copy of the order be communicated to the learned

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

// 3 //

¶18

trial Court for compliance.

¶19

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

RKM

Page 3 of 3

Lilu@ Abhisek Senapati v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilu@ Abhisek Senapati 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

State Vs Pratap Ch.Suar

Debendra Das @ Muna Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Naik @ Durga Vs State of Odisha

Bidhira Nag Vs State of Odisha

Biju @ Bijay Samantaray @ Mangaraj @ Lenka Vs State of Odisha