Allowed

Pramod Munda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Aug 2022CRLREV/209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa was presented with a revision petition challenging the rejection of bail in a case involving the Juvenile Justice Act and POCSO Act. The victim's testimony indicated compromised identification procedures. The court, considering the petitioner's detention, age, and lack of prior record, granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions including family surety, undertaking regarding associations, and District Probation Officer surveillance.

Pramod Munda Vs State of Odisha — Child Custody and Guardianship | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No. 209 of 2022

¶3

Pramod Munda

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr.P.S. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha …. Opp.Party

¶8

Mr.Rajesh Tripathy Addl. Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

ORDER

Order No.

10.08.2022

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).

¶15

None appears for the informant even though notice was made sufficient pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2022.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 401 of Cr.P.C. read with section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter ‘J.J. Act’) challenging the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No.82/67 of 2019 in rejecting his bail application.

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is detained in the observation home since 26.06.2019 and he has been charge sheeted under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that in the meantime, the trial has commenced and the victim has been examined as P.W.1 in the learned trial Court and though she identified the petitioner in the T.I. parade but in the cross-examination, she has stated that she had no prior acquaintance with the CICLs and police had arrested the culprits and called her to police station, where police identified the culprits to her by saying that these persons have committed the offence and from Children Home police took her to Observation Home at Rourkela for T.I. parade and prior to the T.I. parade, the police had shown her the photographs of the CICLs and she identified those during the T.I. parade. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of such evidence of the victim, the sanctity of the T.I. parade is lost and in view of the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, unless he is released on bail, he will be seriously prejudiced.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.1 and also the Social Investigation report from which it appears that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

adduced by the victim in the learned trial Court, the period of detention of the petitioner in Observation Home, the age of the petitioner and the progress of the trial, I am inclined to release of the petitioner on bail.

¶25

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as the learned Board in seisin over the matter may deem just and proper with further conditions that:-

¶26

(i) one surety should be the family member of the petitioner,

¶27

(ii) his parent/guardian/close family member shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall not be allowed to come in contact with any unsocial and criminal association and shall not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further he shall ensure that the petitioner is not indulged in any criminal activities and he shall further ensure the presence of the petitioner during inquiry before the Board as and when required;

¶28

(iii) the District Probation Officer shall keep a close vigilance on the activities of the petitioner while on bail and regularly draw his social investigation report which shall be submitted to the Board on periodical basis as the Board chooses.

¶29

Accordingly, the CRLREV is allowed.

¶30

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

Page 3 of 4

// 4 //

A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State which is to be forwarded to the District Probation Officer, Keonjhar for compliance.

¶35

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Pramod Munda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Munda 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

Vishal Kar@Bishal Vs State of Odisha

Babu@Soumya Ranjan Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Kapur Chan Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Kalia@Bhabani Sankar Nath Vs State of Odisha

Sipun Dhuri Vs State of Odisha

Amarnath Mishra@Amaranath Mishra Vs State of Odisha