Dismissed¶31

Indi Munda @ Endi Munda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2025BLAPL/2189/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refusal, Orissa High Court, Cuttack; BLAPL 2189/2025; Indi Munda @ Endi Munda; BNS 2023 Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) (rape and criminal intimidation); Rairakhol P.S. Case No.299/2024; G.R. Case No.703/2024; SDJM Rairakhol; custody since 19.12.2024; affidavit of amicable settlement obtained without victim's knowledge; victim produced via V.C. with IIC per 21.04.2025 order; heinous crime; dismissed by Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi on 08.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: considering the submissions made, the materials placed, and the crime committed by the petitioner, which the Court found heinous in nature, the Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. ¶30

Indi Munda @ Endi Munda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2189 of 2025

¶2

Indi Munda @ Endi Munda

¶3

..…... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Chitta Ranjan Sahu, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

………. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

08.05.2025

Order No.

F.I.R No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
299	18.12.2024	Rairakhol	G.R. Case No.703 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Rairakhol	U/s. 64(2)(m)/351( 3) of BNS, 2023

¶16

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶17

2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Rairakhol P.S. Case No.299 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.703 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Rairakhol and registered for the alleged commission of offences

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

under Section 64(2)(m)/351(3) of BNS, 2023, has filed this petition seeking release on bail.

¶20

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.12.2024 at 9.30 pm, the Informant appeared at Rairakhol PS and presented a written report to the effect that he has been working as mason at Balangir for about four months. On last Tuesday in the night at about 9 pm, while his wife had been to attend call of nature, the Petitioner forcibly caught hold her and committed rape on her. Further the petitioner also threatened to kill her if she will disclose the incident to anybody. Thereafter, his wife returned her house and narrated the incident before her husband and reported the matter at the Police Station.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 19.12.2024. He submits that there are contradiction between 161 statements and the FIR story. He further submits that the Petitioner has filed an affidavit which was prepared in non judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- before the Executive Magistrate, Rairakhol wherein it has been stated that:-

¶22

“ on account of amicable settlement and very approach of my husband and family members of the accused, the dispute regarding transaction of the money and by liability towards the accused was settled and I

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

became made free from monetary liability towards the accused.”

¶25

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has visiting term with the victim and the allegations leveled against him are false & concocted one. He further submits that the fact of rape and molestation has not been mentioned in the FIR and no bodily injury or no sign of violence as such feature suggestive of committed rape by applying force is noticed by the Doctor, who examined the victim. In view of all these above, when the Petitioner is a permanent resident of District Sambalpur as also the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise, he urges for consideration of prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶26

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner.

¶27

7. This Court on 21.04.2025 ordered the victim to present along with the IIC, Rairakhol before this Court. Accordingly, the victim appeared through V.C. along with the IIC, Rairakhol and one lady constable. On Inquiry regarding her signature on the affidavit, she stated that she had signed on the affidavit but the contents of that affidavit were not told to her. It seems that the affidavit has been obtained without the knowledge of the victim about the contents of the affidavit and on the basis of the said

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

affidavit, the Petitioner claims to be free from any blameworthiness.

¶30

8. Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials as placed and the crime committed by the present Petitioner, which is heinous in nature, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶31

9. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed.

¶32

10. Issue urgent certified copy of the order pas per Rules.

¶33

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Gitanjali

¶36

Signature Not Verified