Disposed

Raju @ Bharat Tanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Apr 2024BLAPL/1457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case; petitioner had been on bail since 2020 but was re-arrested on a non-bailable warrant after failing to appear once. The court released him on stringent conditions including personal attendance and bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.50,000 with two local solvent sureties, subject to attendance and conduct conditions.

Raju @ Bharat Tanty Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1457 of 2024

¶2

Raju @ Bharat Tanty

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Partha Sarathi Das

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Kuntala Mahanta Represented By Adv. – Mr. Debasish Nayak, A.G.A.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

15.04.2024

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party No.1. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶14

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with Special Case No.339/76 of 2022-2018, arising out of Jhumpura P.S. Case No.64 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge under POCSO Act, Keonjhar, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 284 /

¶15

Page 1 of 4.

¶16

363 / 342 / 376(3) / 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially released on bail in Special Case No.339/76 of 2022-2018, arising out of Jhumpura P.S. Case No.64 of 2018, vide order dated 13.01.2020. He further contended that in the present case, the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed on 25.11.2018. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the Petitioner was appearing before the trial court, however, on one day he could not appear, as a result of which, N.B.W. was issued on 14.09.2023 and in execution of such N.B.W., the Petitioner has again arrested and taken to custody on 05.01.2024 and since that date he has been languishing in jail custody. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the event he is released on bail. He further contended that the Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every date without fail.

¶18

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand,

¶19

Page 2 of 4.

¶20

contended that since the Petitioner has once defaulted in appearing, there is also a likelihood that he might default again in appearance before the trial court. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that such non-appearance was caused delay in conclusion of the trial. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful examination of the materials on record and further taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was initially released on bail by the trial court vide order dated 13.01.2020, certified copy of which was produced before this Court and the same is taken on record. Thereafter the Petitioner arrested on 05.01.2024 due to his default in appearing for before the trial court, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions.

¶22

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to the conditions that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin over the matter till conclusion of the trial; shall appear before

¶23

Page 3 of 4.

¶24

the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case; and he shall not threaten, terrorize and harass the prosecution witnesses while on bail. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶25

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶26

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

¶27

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶28

Debasis

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 16-Apr-2024 11:46:06

¶31

Page 4 of 4.

Raju @ Bharat Tanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Bharat Tanty 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

Debaraj Mallick Vs Sushil Lohani, I.A.S

Pravakar Pradhan Vs Sumitra Kumari Pattanaik, Registrar of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishavidyalaya, Puri

Runu Munda Vs State of Odisha

Gagan Naik @ Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Jitu Majhi @ Vokal Vs State of Odisha

Susama Naik Vs State of Odisha