Dismissed

Baga@Laxmidhar Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Nov 2021CRLA/147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa dismissed the CRLA and denied bail to the appellant accused of rape facilitation under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC, noting his custody duration justifies liberty after witness examination and without remitting the application to the earlier bench.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied; liberty granted to move for bail after examination of victim and material witnesses.

Baga@Laxmidhar Behera Vs State of Odisha — Caste Atrocities | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLA No. 147 of 2021

¶3

Baga@Laxmidhar Behera …. Appellant

¶4

Mr. Sanjib Ku. Bhanjadeo, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Respondents Mr. K.K. Nayak, ASC

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER

02.11.2021

Heard Mr. Sanjib Ku. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel through hybrid mode.

¶12

This is an application under Section 14 (A) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail to the Appellant-Baga@Laxmidhar Behera in connection with Air Field P.S. Case No.11 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 74 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned 3^rd Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar at Khurda for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376-D/ 341/ 323 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (w)(i)/3(2)(v) of SC and ST (P.A.) Act, 1989.

¶13

That the appellant had had moved an application for bail before the court of learned 3^rd Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar at Khurda which was rejected on 01.02.2021.

¶14

The allegation against the appellant is that he had facilitated the commission of rape upon the victim by the co-accused, Sidheswar Sahoo.

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

Mr. Sanjib Ku. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant also belongs to Scheduled Caste and he has filed the copy of the certificate which indicates that the appellant belongs to Kaibarta Caste which is recognised as Scheduled Caste and hence the offences under Sections 3 (1) (w)(i)/3(2)(v) of SC and ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 are not made out against him. He also submits that since the petitioner is not the principal accused and has not committed rape , the offence under Section 376-D of I.P.C. is not made out against him. He further submits that the medical report does not support the allegation of rape as there is no external bodily injury.

¶17

Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel has placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the petitioner had gagged her mouth while the co-accused, Sidheswar Sahoo committed rape on her for which an offence under Section 376-D of I.P.C. is made out against him . He also submits that the victim is a married lady and therefore absence of injuries on her private parts is natural .

¶18

Considering the submissions of both the counsels, nature of allegations against the appellant and the punishment prescribed for the said offences, and the earlier rejection of the prayer for bail , I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. The submission of the appellant that he belongs to Scheduled Caste for which the offences under section – 3 (1) (w)(i)/3(2)(v) of the SC and ST ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act , 1989, are not made out against him can be considered during the trial.

¶19

At this juncture , Mr. Sanjib Ku. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel submits that this the second journey of the appellant to this court for bail and this appeal may be listed before the Bench which had earlier rejected the prayer . Had the rejection of the earlier application been brought to my notice , when the matter was taken up or had I been

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

inclined to allow the prayer for bail ( which would have been a different view from the one in the previous application ) , I would have directed the registry to place the matter before the same Bench . But the learned counsel for the appellant chose to argue the appeal on merit . After hearing the submissions , as I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant , I do not think it necessary to direct for listing the matter before the Bench which had rejected the earlier bail application.

¶23

In these circumstance, the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 62 , which is extracted below is relevant.

¶24

“3. …Otherwise a party aggrieved by an order passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in the judiciary…”

¶25

As the appellant is stated to be in custody for almost two years, liberty is granted to the appellant to move for bail after examination of the victim girl and other material witnesses.

¶26

The CRLA is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶27

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

¶28

( Savitri Ratho)

¶29

puspa Judge

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Baga@Laxmidhar Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baga@Laxmidhar Behera 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baijayanti Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Budhiram Gaipai Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Mahanta @ Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Sudhansu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Khirod Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sudarshan Kishan Vs State of Odisha