Orissa High Court
Rajesh Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 19 April, 2023
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No. 1588 of 2023
Rajesh Kumar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 19.04.2023
04. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail Under Section. 438 of Cr.P.C. in apprehension of arrest for his alleged involvement in the offences under Sections 366/376-D/376(2)(n)/342/506 of IPC corresponding to C.T Case No. 1167 of 2022 arising out of Soro P.S Case No. 547 of 2022 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Soro.
3. The Petitioner, as reveals from the FIR has been arrayed in the offences Under Section 366/376-D/376(2)(n)/342/506 of IPC for alleged commission of rape on the victim.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Final Form in the meanwhile has been submitted in this case implicating the accused Person in the offence U/s. 376(2)(n)/506/363/344 of IPC.
// 2 //
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the offence U/s. 376-D having not been arrayed in the charge-sheet the present Petitioner, on the basis of the statement can at best be implicated for having abated kidnapping of the victim and as such the Petitioner may be considered for anticipatory bail.
6. The learned Additional Standing Counsel other the other hand, vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the statement of the victim in the given circumstances appears more important than any other document including the medical report.
7. According to learned counsel for the State, the Informant victim has undergone a trauma but has given consistent statement as recorded U/s. 164 Cr.P.C that the present Petitioner committed rape with her. The veracity of the testimony of the victim could be tested at the time of trial but prima facie it cannot be denied merely on the basis of the fact that the Investigating Agency did not array the Petitioner in the offence U/s. 376-D IPC.
8. Keeping in view the statement as recorded U/s. 164 Cr.P.C and other material available on record against the present Petitioner, the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be given much importance in as much as there is active involvement of the Petitioner may it be in the kidnapping or in the rape as alleged. The very act alleged being heinous in nature, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly the prayer for bail stands rejected and the ABLAPL is dismissed.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge B.K Sahoo Page 2 of 2