High Court dismissed application for bail under Cr.P.C. s.439. Court refused to adjourn due to non-filing of victim depositions required by earlier order despite repeated directions.
Bail application dismissed; liberty granted to approach trial court afresh if trial is delayed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 10166 of 2023
Krushna Chandra Kanhar @ Kaanr
….. Petitioner
Mr. Prahallad Sahoo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dilip Kumar Sahu, Advocate Vs.
State of Odisha
….. Opposite Party Mr. D.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER
20.12.2023
Order No.
(Through hybrid mode)
1. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
bail to the petitioner in connection with Boudh P.S. Case No. 08 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 08 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Boudh in Special Case No. 04 of 2023 (POCSO Act) where it has been stated that the star witnesses examined so far have fully corroborated the prosecution story. It has also been stated that even if any consent was obtained from the victim, it amounts to no consent.
3. By order dated 18.09.2023, this Court had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record the statement of
Page 1 of 3
the victim and her parents who have deposed in the meanwhile. On 16.10.023, adjournment had been prayed for to comply with the order dated 18.09.2023. On 08.11.2023, none had appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called and the case has been posted to today to give another chance to the learned counsel for the petitioner to comply with the earlier orders.
4. The depositions of the victim and her parents have still not been filed.
5. Mr. Prahallad Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.
Dilip Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim had gone voluntarily again with the petitioner for which no offence is made out against him.
6. Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that even though the victim may have stated that she left the house of her father with the petitioner as their family members were opposed to her relationships with the petitioner, as she was a minor on the date of alleged occurrence, her consent is no consent in the eye of law for which the offences against the petitioner are clearly made out.
7. As in spite of order of this Court the depositions of the victim and her parents have not been produced for perusal of the Court in spite of two adjournment, I am not inclined to adjourn the BLAPL any further.
Page 2 of 3
8. The BLAPL is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to
move for bail afresh before the learned trial court in case there is delay
in conclusion of the trial.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh is requested to dispose of the trial within a period of 6 months if there
is no other legal impediment.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 20-Dec-2023 18:57:30
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Krushna Chandra Kanhar @ Kaanr
State of Odisha
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
