Orissa High Court
Pradip Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 26 October, 2021
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.17917 of 2019
Pradip Pradhan .... Petitioner
Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Anupam Rath, ASC
Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate (Complainant)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
26.10.2021 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).
2. Mr. Amit Pattnaik, Advocate & Associates filing Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record have entered appearance on behalf of the Complainant.
3. The Petitioner having been implicated in Kharbelnagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 has filed this application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. for his release on bail in the event of his arrest.
4. Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are all false and politically motivated and the materials on record do not implicate the Petitioner in commission of the offences such as section 228-A/306/506/509/120-B, I.P.C., and sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 for which the case was initially registered. It is Page 1 of 4 // 2 // submitted that the Informant of the case claiming herself to be a social worker had lodged the F.I.R. and as it did not reveal the commission of any cognizable offence, the police had rightly refused to accept the same. She further submits that in a later move, a complaint being filed the case has been registered and this move is only to see that the Petitioner is harassed so that he remains under pressure in not raising his voice against the illegal activity carried out by the Petitioner. She also submits that the Petitioner having been granted interim protection since 20.12.2019, has all along cooperated with the investigation without misusing the liberty. In view of all these above, she urges for grant of anticipatory bail to this Petitioner.
5. Mr. Anupam Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State placing the Case Diary for perusal opposes the move. He submits that in the meantime on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted placing the Petitioner for trial for commission of offence under section 228-A, I.P.C., section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. Highlighting the role of the Petitioner as have been stated by the witnesses; he contends that prima facie case under section 228-A, I.P.C. stands against the Petitioner as also those under section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and section 23(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019. According to him, the way the minor Page 2 of 4 // 3 // victim had been called to the place by the Petitioner and her photographs etc. were taken and made viral, it is quite shocking an incident in the civilized society. He submits that in view of the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted also for commission of offence under section 3(1)(r) of the S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989, in view of the bar contained in section-18-A of the Act, the provision of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be summoned into action. In view of all these above, he submits that the Petitioner is not entitled to be granted with the anticipatory bail.
6. Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant opposes the move. Reiterating the above submission of the learned counsel for the State, he further points out that the Petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases initiated for similar type of allegations. He submits that although the materials on record collected in course of investigation show the involvement of the Petitioner for commission of the offence under section 306, I.P.C., charge- sheet having not been filed placing the Petitioner for trial for the said offence, a protest petition on that score has been filed which is pending for consideration. It is his submission that when the incident as it happened is trekked right from the beginning till the end, the Petitioner's culpability in so far as the commission of offence under section 306, I.P.C. in the facts and circumstances would stand. It is stated that testing the facts and circumstances in the touchstone of the settled parameters holding the field of grant of anticipatory bail, the prayer as advanced does not merit acceptance.
Page 3 of 4// 4 //
7. Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials as placed, further keeping in view the surrounding circumstances as those emanate in course of investigation while being not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner; this application stands disposed of with the observation that when the occasion would so arise before the learned court in seisin of the case to consider the matter relating to grant of regular bail to the Petitioner, the same shall be made on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order and disposed of early in accordance with law.
5. The ABLAPL is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order dated 20.12.2019 does no more survive to hold the field.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash) Judge Himansu Page 4 of 4