Single judge dismissed an appeal under Section 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act against bail rejection in a rape case involving pre-planned forcible sexual intercourse and armed threat.
The Criminal Appeal against the order refusing bail was dismissed and the appellant remains in custody.
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.
CRLA No. 968 of 2019
Baman @ Baban @ Subash Naik …..... Appellant
-Vrs.-
State of Odisha & Another ....…. Opp. parties
This appeal has been preferred by the appellantBaman @ Baban @ Subash Naik under Section 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act against the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal in C.T. Special Case No.52 of 2019 corresponding to Motanga P.S. Case No.176 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1032 of 2019 registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 450/376-D/506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(w)(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, refusing to release the appellant on bail.
Sukanta
The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 01.10.2019 at 10.00 p.m. in the night, while the informant was sleeping alone in her house, all the accused persons entered inside her house by breaking open the door and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one after another for about three hours and while leaving the spot, accused Baban Naik holding a knife to her neck threatened her not to disclose the matter before anybody, otherwise
2
he would will kill her and her husband.
Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 02.10.2019 and in the meanwhile, charge sheet has been filed on 02.12.2020 against him and other accused persons, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 450/376-D/506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(w)(2) (v)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. He further submits that false allegations have been against the appellant as the doctor who examined the victim did not find any sign of recent sexual inter-course or any injury on her private parts.
Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the materials collected by the prosecution reveals that the crime has been committed in a pre planned manner .The FIR and statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Sec- 164 Cr.P.C implicate the appellant. He has further submitted that broken bangles and a knife have been recovered from the spot and injuries have been found on the face, breast and chin of the victim lady and as she is a married lady, absence of injuries on her private parts is not unusual.
Considering the respective submissions, nature of allegations against the appellant, the manner in which the offence was committed, I do not consider this to be fit
3
case to grant bail to the appellant.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
On account of restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
…………………..…… Savitri Ratho,
Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Appeal against an order refusing bail should be allowed.
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite a planned sexual offence with injuries.
Whether absence of injury on private parts negates the prosecution case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Baman @ Baban @ Subash Naik
State of Odisha
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
