Bail application rejected in a POCSO case involving death due to poison consumption following alleged humiliation. Court directed trial expeditions and witness examination.
Application for bail dismissed. Trial court directed to expedite trial and examine material witnesses at first instance.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 347 of 2021
Susanta @ Tuna Dharua
Petitioner
Mr. Jagannath Kamila, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opp. Party
Mr. Abhinandan Pradhan Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
Order No.
ORDER 02.08.2021
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.92 of 2020 arising out of Koksara P.S. Case No.276 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna for offences punishable under sections 341/294/323/305/354-A/354-B/354-D of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Bhawanipatna vide order dated 04.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.12.2020 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 341/294/323/305/354-
// 2 //
A/354-B/354-D of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act. He further submitted that the prosecution case is that while the victim was coming to the village tube well to collect water, the petitioner stated to have misbehaved her and the victim consumed poison and she was shifted to hospital where she died. He further submitted that there is no such material to make out a case under section 305 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim was minor as on the date of occurrence and the statements of Dipanjali Dharua and Parikhita Dharua indicate how the victim was humiliated on the public road on the date of occurrence and the petitioner outraged her modesty disrobed the victim and on account of such humiliation, she tried to take the extreme steps to end her life by consuming poison and ultimately she died. He further submitted that the post mortem report indicates that the cause of death was on account of consumption of unknown poison. He further submitted that in view of the nature of accusation, the petitioner should not be released on bail.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the surrounding circumstances under which the offences alleged to have taken place, the age of the victim and the statements of the witnesses, the post mortem report findings, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, 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
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
examination of the material witnesses at the first instance. The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the trial Court.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March 2020 as modified by Court’s
Notice No.4798 dated 15th April 2021.
RKM
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner in a POCSO case should be released on bail after rejection by the trial court.
Whether the trial court must expedite the examination of material witnesses given the period of detention.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Susanta @ Tuna Dharua
State of Odisha
S.K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
