Dismissed

Prakash Manhira v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Nov 2021BLAPL/7702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejected an application for bail in a Tarva P.S. case involving allegations of forcible entry, kidnapping, and rape. The High Court held that the prima facie evidence of rape by the victim made it an untenable case for bail until further investigation, dismissing the petition while allowing renewal after victim examination.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; liberty to renew prayer after examination of the victim.

Prakash Manhira Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 7702 of 2021

¶3

Prakash Manhiira

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr.Satyabrata Panda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party Mr.D.R.Parida, ASC for the State and Mr. S.K.Dwibedi for the Informant

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

02.11.2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Tarva P.S. Case No.37 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 38 of 2021 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Tarva.

¶16

Perused the F.I.R. and other police papers.

¶17

The complainant lodged the F.I.R. alleging that on 07.03.2021 at about 4.00 P.M. while she was at home, the petitioner and other persons armed with weapon like Bhujali, lathi etc. forcibly entered inside and when she protested, was assaulted and abused in filthy language and thereafter, the accused persons committed the other overt acts which are described therein in detail.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rape being committed by the accused and at best, it would be a case of kidnapping and since the victim initially declined to get herself medical examined, the allegation of rape cannot be believed and that apart, in the meantime, charge sheet has already been filed and therefore, the accused should be released on bail.

¶19

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the informant strongly opposed the bail of the petitioner on the ground that the victim was raped.

¶20

Perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other police papers. From the F.I.R., it is made to appear that the petitioner along with 15 to 20 persons forcibly entered inside the house of the victim and kidnapped her. According to the victim’s version under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she was subjected to rape and was then confined for 3 to 4 days after being kidnapped.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State submits that the victim has been medically examined and produced the medical examination report for the court’s perusal.

¶22

Considering the manner in which the petitioner committed the overt acts and kidnapped the victim and then, subjected her to rape as is prima facie revealed from her version, notwithstanding the fact that the investigation to be over, the Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where bail should be granted.

¶23

In the result, the application for bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the victim.

¶24

Accordingly, the BLAPL is rejected.

¶25

(R.K.Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

Prakash Manhira v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Manhira 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

Achyuta Das Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Abhisek Naik Vs State of Odisha

Aita Podiami Vs State of Odisha

Gandhi Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Pintu Rout Vs State of Odisha