Disposed

Susanta Kumar Barik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Sept 2024BLAPL/3456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused charged with rape and allied offences. The court noted the independent witness's statement suggesting a consensual relationship, absence of medical evidence of recent intercourse, and period of custody, and enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on terms fixed by the trial court, with additional conditions of appearing at every hearing and not influencing witnesses.

Susanta Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.3456 of 2024

¶3

Susanta Kumar Barik …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr. Debasish Biswal, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

03.09.2024

1 . The petitioner is an accused in connection with Kuakhia P.S. Case No.114 of 2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.754 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1)/328/385/506 of the IPC pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

3. The prosecution story is that, on 10.03.2024, the complainant presented a written report at Kuakhia P.S. that one Susanta Kumar Barik working at Bharat Finance Ltd., Jajpur Road came to her house and assured her for clearance of the loan process. The accused blackmailed her and kept sexual relation with her. During that relation, he had taken her nude photographs in his mobile. When the complainant denied to repay the money, the accused threatened to kill her and her husband. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶18

4. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 376/506/342/450/354-B of the IPC. Although the F.I.R. allegation has been made against the petitioner regarding taking of nude photographs of the victim and circulating the same, however, after the investigation, there is no offence under the I.T. Act has been made against the petitioner.

¶19

5. The victim is a married woman of 31 years old. It has come on record that one of the witnesses, namely, Amiya Sankar Jena, who is the Manager of Mahabir Resort, in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. has stated that both the victim and the petitioner had checked into the Resort and stayed in the Resort overnight and on the next day, they checked out.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

6. The statement of the independent witness indicates that the victim had been in a consensually relationship with the petitioner. Moreover, the medical evidence of the victim indicates that, there is no sign or symptom of recent sexual intercourse. The petitioner has been in custody since 11.03.2024.

¶22

7. The petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Jajpur in BLAPL No.134 of 2024 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 04.04.2024 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.

¶23

8. Regard being had to the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the nature of the evidence so far as the victim is concerned, which forms part of the charge sheet and the period of custody, i.e., 11.03.2024, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶24

9. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:

¶25

(1) The petitioner shall appear before the

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

Court, without fail, on every date of

¶28

hearing; and

¶29

(2) He shall not influence any of the witnesses related to this case in any manner whatsoever.

¶30

In the event that the petitioner is found wanting for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

¶31

10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Subhasis

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Sep-2024 10:24:05

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Susanta Kumar Barik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanta Kumar Barik 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

Harendra Yadav Vs State of Odisha

Subala Bhue@Subala Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Tusharkanta Parida Vs State of Odisha

Rajani Pradhan @ Naik Vs State of Odisha

Anil Khora Vs State of Odisha

Lakhamana@Laxman Hati Vs State of Odisha