Dismissed

Rajen Kujur v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Oct 2021BLAPL/6893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Orissa considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner accused of rape and attempted rape. The court rejected bail due to the serious nature of allegations and available evidence, while directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; application to expedite trial directed to trial court.

Rajen Kujur Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 6893 of 2019

¶3

Rajen Kujur …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. G. Ch. Swain, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Orissa

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. Karunakar Nayak, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Order No. 25.10.2021

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. G. Ch. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karunakar Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶16

This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner- Rajen Kujur in connection with Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.108 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.589 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376-D/376(2)(n) of I.P.C.

¶17

The petitioner had moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh which was rejected on 02.08.2019.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken the victim with her friend on his motor cycle and after the friend of the victim got down from the motor cycle, the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

petitioner did not allow the victim to get down but took her to a nearby jungle where he and the co accused forcibly raped her inspite of her protest. Thereafter they took her to village Khairkhaman and again committed forcible sexual intercourse.

¶22

Mr G.C Swain , learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2019 and false allegations have been made against him as no injuries have been detected on the victim .

¶23

Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State places the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and has produced her medical examination report which indicates marks of violence and injuries on her body and signs of recent sexual intercourse.

¶24

Considering the allegations against the petitioner and nature of materials collected against him and the punishment prescribed for the offences , I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶25

The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed .

¶26

As the petitioner is stated to be in custody since more than two years, I request the learned trial Court to expedite the trial if there is no other legal impediment .

¶27

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

¶28

.........................

¶29

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Sukanta

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

Rajen Kujur v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajen Kujur 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

Binayak Kanhar Vs State of Orissa

Bipin Bahadur Vs State of Orissa

Nakula Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Lochan Munda Vs State of Odisha

Dipak Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Lalita Muduli Vs State of Odisha