Chikun Sethi @ Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Instant petition is filed for release of the petitioner seeking correction of the name of the PS wrongly mentioned in the cause title of the bail petition.

¶19

Since such correction is requested for, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed of with the PS to be read as ‘Jagannathprasad P.S.’ in place of ‘Buguda P.S.’

¶20

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶21

BLAPL No.6058 of 2024

¶22

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State.

¶24

Instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.61 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶25

Page 1 of 3

¶26

Bhanjanagar, Ganjam corresponding to Jagannathprasad P.S. Case No.487 of 2023 on the grounds stated therein.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in a relationship with the victim and the latter became pregnant and such pregnancy was terminated and at last, when their marriage did not materialize, the report was lodged, whereafter, the accused was arrested and is in custody from 7^th February, 2024 and therefore, he should be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions as would be imposed by the Court.

¶28

Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State referring to the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would submit that the petitioner is responsible for the alleged mischief and therefore, should not be released on bail.

¶29

In course of hearing, it is informed to the Court that the trial has not yet commenced. Perused the F.I.R. as at Annexure-1 and also the rejection order i.e. Annexure-2 besides the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the same, the Court finds that the victim aged about 15 years, had been in a relationship for the past three years with the petitioner and maintained sexual intimacy and had become pregnant but the same was aborted administering her medicine. The record further reveals that the report was lodged at last, when the petitioner declined to marry the informant. It seems that as the marriage could not be materialized despite being in a relationship for nearly three years, the informant had to lodge the report. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the above circumstances, an offence under Section 376(2)(n) I.P.C is not at all made out. Leaving such question to be considered by the learned court below during trial but for the reason that the parties had been in a committed relationship for some time and it has ultimately resulted in lodging of a report apparently when the petitioner declined to marry the

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

victim, the Court is of the view that the accused, who has remained in judicial custody, since the date of his arrest, should be allowed to go on bail imposing conditions.

¶32

6. Hence, it is ordered.

¶33

In the result, petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to go on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.61 of 2024 corresponding to Jagannathprasad P.S. Case No.487 of 2023 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, he shall not cause any harm to the victim and terrorize her in any manner, whatsoever, while on bail.

¶34

8. The BLAPL is disposed of.

¶35