Dismissed¶21

Saroj Ranabida v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Nov 2024BLAPL/2630/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court bail refusal; S.439 Cr.P.C. 1973 application rejected for accused charged under S.451, S.376AB, S.376(2)(n) IPC 1860 and Ss.4 & 6 POCSO Act 2012 (repeated rape of 10-year-old minor, Special (POCSO) Case No.10 of 2022, Baunsuni P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022, Boudh); bail denied because trial already commenced and POCSO Act requires speedy conclusion of trial; trial court directed to expedite trial; judge Ananda Chandra Behera; decision date 22.11.2024; victim personally heard; no bail granted, no monetary award.

What did the court decide?

Since the trial has already commenced and the POCSO Act mandates that the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible, it was not considered proper to release the petitioner on bail in the midst of the trial. ¶19

Saroj Ranabida Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, facing trial in Special (POCSO) Case No.10 of 2022 on charges of repeated rape of a minor girl, should be released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

¶14

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Given the heinous nature of the allegations - repeated rape committed on a minor victim aged about 10 years - the petitioner was not permitted to go on bail.

¶19

Key takeaways

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused and the bail application is rejected.ratio¶20
The trial court (Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh) is directed to conclude the trial of Special Case No.10 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the POCSO Act's mandate for speedy trial.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BLAPL No.2630 of 2024 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 22.11.2024, Ananda Chandra Behera, J.): Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by Saroj Ranabida, arising out of Baunsuni P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022 connected with Special (POCSO) Case No.10 of 2022 pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh. The petitioner stands charged under Sections 451, 376AB, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for allegedly committing rape repeatedly on a minor girl aged about 10 years. As the trial had already commenced and the POCSO Act mandates expeditious conclusion of trial, the Court held it improper to grant bail mid-trial given the heinous nature of the allegations; the prayer for bail was refused and the application rejected, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with the POCSO Act's speedy-trial mandate. The victim was heard personally before the order was passed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2630 of 2024

¶2

Saroj Ranabida

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Jugala Kishore Panda

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Krupasindhu Urma Represented By Adv. –

¶7

B.K. Sahu, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

ORDER

22.11.2024

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the petitioner has arisen out of Baunsuni P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022 in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.10 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Boudh.

¶15

I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as from the victim personally.

¶16

The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Boudh in Special (POCSO) Case No.10

¶17

Page 1 of 2.

¶18

of 2022 having been charged under Sections 451, 376AB, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the allegations of commission of rape on minor girl repeatedly.

¶19

As, the trial of the case has already been started and as per the mandate of the POCSO Act, the trial of the case is required to be concluded as expeditiously as possible, for which, in the midst of the trial of the case, it is not felt proper to allow the petitioner to go on bail in this heinous nature of allegations, as the rape has been committed repeatedly on the minor victim, who is aged about 10 years.

¶20

Therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

¶22

Learned Trial Court i.e. Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Boudh is directed to conclude the trial of Special Case No.10 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind to the mandate of POCSO Act for speedy trial.

¶23

As such, the bail application filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Nov-2024 16:30:25

¶26

Utkalika

¶27

Page 2 of 2.

¶28

( ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) Judge

Saroj Ranabida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Ranabida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Bindhani@ Hero Vs State of Odisha

Khetrabasi Jena Vs State of Odisha

G.Lacheya Vs State of Odisha

Mrutunjaya Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Dilu @ Dillip Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ashad Ali Vs State of Odisha