Om Prakash Nayak @ Alok Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant. Pursuant to notice vide order dated 20.03.2024 as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State. Perused the records.

¶16

The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with OupadaP.S Case No. 50/2023 corresponding to C.T. No. 293/2023, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nilagiri, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 363/366 of the I.P.C.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner as well as the victim had a love relationship for last

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

three years. He further submitted that when the victim proposed to marry the present petitioner, the family members of the victim did not agree. As a result of which the victim left her parental house and was staying in the house of the maternal aunt of the present petitioner. At the relevant point of time the victim was a minor, however, on attaining the age of majority the petitioner has already married to the victim and they are staying together as husband and wife and living a happy and peaceful conjugal life. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be released on bail on any terms and conditions.

¶20

Leaned counsel for the informant on the other hand supported the contention of the counsel for the petitioner to the extent that they are both married and staying together as husband and wife. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produces a copy of the 164 statement of the victim which has been recorded pursuant to order dated 23.03.2024. On perusal of the 164 statement it appears that the victim has admitted about the love relationship with the petitioner. She has further stated in her 164 statement that when her family members prevented her from keeping in touch with the petitioner, she decided to run away with the petitioner and accordingly on 05.06.2023 she went to the maternal aunt’s house and was staying there until she attained the age of 18 years. In her 164 statement she has further stated that upon attaining the age of majority on 12.06.2023, she got married to the present petitioner in a temple and the marriage was subsequently registered before the competent authority and that she staying happily at her in-law’s house in the moment. On perusal of the record it appears that the victim is a major at pursuant and that she is married to the petitioner

¶21

Page 2 of 3.

¶22

on her own volition and is staying with the petitioner.

¶23

Considering the nature of allegation, the gravity of offence and the facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner. However, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the Court in seisin over the matter within a period of four weeks from today and moves an application for bail, the Court in seisin over the matter shall release him on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Violation of any of such conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of.

¶25

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

¶26

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶27

Rubi

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C uatt ack Date: 12-Sep-2024 13:30:03

¶29

Signature Not Verified