The High Court allowed the petitioner's bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case. The court granted bail noting that the victim and her parents had already deposed. Bail was released subject to strict conditions.
Petitioner released on bail with conditions to report every Sunday, not contact witnesses, and remain present at trial.
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. 10891 of 2023
Bishnu Sahoo
….. Petitioner
Mr. Tushar Kanta Nayak, Advocate Vs.
1. State of Odisha
1. State of Odisha ….. Opposite Parties 2. Gayatri Nayak Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Order No.
ORDER
18.12.2023
04. (Through hybrid mode)
1. This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Sea Beach P.S. Case No. 290 of 2022 corresponding to
Special G.R. Case No. 122 of 2022 now pending as T.R. Case No. 11 of 2023 in the court of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Puri under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (n), 376 (3), 323, 328, 506 and 34 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prohibition Child Marriage Act.
2. Notice had been issued to the informant to the opposite party no.2
who was a minor through her father Bijaya Kumar Nayak by Registered Post with A.D. as well as through the IIC, Sea Beach Police Station. A.D.
has returned after service of notice on the informant and Mr. S.S. Pradhan,
learned Additional Government Advocate submits that notice has also been
served on the opposite party no.2 through the IIC, Sea Beach Police Station and they informed that the case will be taken up on 18.12.2023 but neither
// 2 //
has any counsel appeared on behalf of the informant (father of the petitioner) nor has any intimation been received from the Police Station that the informant will appear through virtual mode from the Police Station.
3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cumSpecial Court under POCSO Act, Puri in T.R. Case No. 11 of 2023.
4. The prosecution allegation as per the F.I.R. dated 18.12.2022 in brief against the petitioner is that one year back the informant had received a missed call on her mobile and from that she came to know the petitioner. They talked over the telephone on various occasions. The petitioner confessed to be in love with the informant and that he wanted to marry her. On 15.01.2022, he came to her village and took her to Konark and she went with him to Konark where he gave her one cold drink to drink after which she lost her consciousness and when she regained her consciousness she was in the petitioner’s sisters house and on the next day, his sister and brother-in-law in spite of her protest and objection got her marriage solemnized with the petitioner in the Shiva Temple near their house and then sent the informant to the petitioner’s house with his parents, where the petitioner had physical relations with the informant against her wishes and after 15 days, they had kept her mobile and thereafter they asked to contact her parents to come there with Rs.2,00,000/- otherwise they would born her and kill her. They also assaulted her. After 10 days, the petitioner left her
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
with his parents and went away to Banglore after which his parents started beating her and also set fire to her and shut the door. She shouted for help and was rescued by the villagers who informed her parents and her father arrived with some villengries and then took her away to his house. Since three days, the petitioner had been calling her over telephone and threatening that he would come the next morning to bring her and if she did not come with him he would throw a bomb at her house, set fire to her house and kill her parents. Finding no other alternative, the informant lodged F.I.R. on 18.12.2022.
5. Mr. Tushar Kanta Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the initial occurrence took place near about January, 2022, F.I.R. has been lodged after almost 11 months. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2022 and in the meanwhile the evidence of the victim and her parents have been recorded during the trial, for which no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any further.
6. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the date of birth of the victim is 27.11.2006 for which she was a minor on the date of occurrence and she is still a minor as on date and in view of the conduct of the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
7. Considering the period of detention of the petitioner in jail custody
and the submission that the victim and her parents have already deposed in the trial, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
8. The petitioner-Bishnu Sahoo shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by the learned Court below, provided examination in chief and cross-examination of the victim and her parents have been completed, including the following conditions:
i. He will not commit any offence while on bail.
ii. He will report before the Sea Beach Police Station on every
Sunday between 3.00 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. till conclusion of trial.
iii. He will not try to threaten or contact the prosecution witnesses.
iv. He will remain present in the trial court on each date it is fixed for trial.
Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of bail/recall of this order.
8. The BLAPL is accordingly allowed.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional District Judge-
cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Puri.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal AssistantReason: Authentication (Savitri Ratho) Location: Orissa High CourtDate: 19-Dec-2023 12:14:18 Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
puspa
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for bail of the petitioner implicating a POCSO charge should be allowed considering the completion of victim deposition.
Whether conditions can be imposed on the petitioner regarding reporting and non-interference with witnesses before release.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bishnu Sahoo
State of Odisha
Gayatri Nayak
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
