Dismissed

Panchanan Behera @ Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Dec 2024BLAPL/11855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a rape case where the trial had commenced and prosecution witnesses were examined. The High Court refused bail, citing that the trial avoids undue delay and witness credibility should not be tested at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to approach the Court again in case of undue delay in trial completion.

Panchanan Behera @ Das Vs State of Odisha — Anticipatory Bail | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11855 of 2024

¶2

Panchanan Behera @ Das

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.P.C.Sejpada, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Ms.Siva Mohanty, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

Order No.

16.12.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

This is the third application of the petitioner in this Court under

¶15

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connexion with Rambha P.S. Case No.739 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1952 of 2023 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Khalikote. The case is now pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khallikote, Ganjam in S.T. Case No.09 of 2024 where the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 (2) (n), 506,500 of IPC.

¶16

BLAPL No.165 of 2024 filed by the petitioner earlier had been dismissed on 12.01.2024 granting him liberty to move for bail afresh after examination of the victim and her brother in the trial.

¶17

Before examination of the victim and her brother in the trial,

¶18

BLAPL No.3033 of 2024 had been filed in this Court and prayer had been

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

made for releasing the petitioner on interim bail to perform the sudhi kriya of his mother – Smt. Bhasi Das who had expired on 22.03.2024.

¶21

By order dated 06.04.2024, the petitioner had been directed to be released on interim bail till 20.04.2024.

¶22

Thereafter, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on 06.11.2024 by the learned trial Court.

¶23

Mr.P.C.Sejpada, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.10.2023 and in the meanwhile ten witnesses have been examined in the trial. P.W.6 is the victim, P.W.7 is her brother and P.W.8 is her father. He submits that their statements are full of contradictions. He also submits that the victim is a major lady, aged about 22 years and since the material witnesses have been examined in the trial, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶24

Ms.Siva Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the victim - P.W.6, her brother - P.W.7 and her father - P.W.8 have supported the prosecution case. She further submits that this is not the stage where veracity of the deposition of the victim is to be examined as the trial is in progress. She also submits that considering the nature of allegations and the sentence prescribed for the offences the petitioner is alleged to have committed, the petitioner should not be released on bail.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

In the case of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘X’ v. State of

¶27

Rajasthan and another reported in 2024 INSC 909, the Supreme Court

¶28

has held as follows:

¶29

“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.

¶30

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

¶31

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.”

¶32

Considering the nature of allegations and the offences under which

¶33

the petitioner has been charged and the punishment prescribed for the said offences, I am not satisfied that there has been undue delay in completion

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

of trial, when the same is under progress. I am also of the view that the purported discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses should not be gone into when the trial is still in progress when the witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

¶36

In view of the above discussions, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶37

The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Liberty is however granted to the petitioner to move for bail afresh

¶39

in case there is undue delay in completion of trial.

¶40

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶41

Bichi

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 16-Dec-2024 19:32:12

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Panchanan Behera @ Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchanan Behera @ Das 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhuban Sabar Vs Divisional Manager,Bajaj Allianz G.I.Co.Ltd.

Indugu Laxman Rao Vs Mahesh Ku.Panda

B.M.,Bajaj Allianz Vs Laxmi Kanta Das

Sabana Kurama Nayak@Sabana Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Budhuram Singh Vs State of Odisha

Jagabandhu Chandal Vs State of Odisha