Orissa High Court
Manoj Sahu @ Laxmi Kanta vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 6 August, 2021
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.4873 of 2021
Manoj Sahu @ Laxmi Kanta .... Petitioner
Swayamprava Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
06.08.2021 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (physical/virtual mode).
2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Bijepur P.S. Case No.56 of 2021 corresponding to Special C.T. Case No.15 of 2021 pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Court under POCSO Act, Bargarh, running for the alleged commission of offence under sections 363/366/376(2)(f)/376(3)/294/323/34, I.P.C. read with section 4 of D.P. Act & section 6 of the POCSO Act has filed this application under section 439, Cr.P.C. for his release on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the prosecution case, the Petitioner and the victim having married were residing under one roof as husband and wife and for quite some time the relationship was cordial. She further Page 1 of 3 // 2 // submits that it is stated that the Petitioner having demanded dowry, dispute arose and the victim being tortured had to inform her father, who finally came and took her from the house and then lodged the F.I.R. It is further submitted that here in order to project a case for commission of offence of rape in a graver form the age of the victim has been shockingly lowered down and shown as seventeen, which is not at all correct. It is also submitted that for some misunderstanding, dispute between the parties having arisen, it has unfortunately led to the filing of the F.I.R. and registration of the case. She submits that due to intervention of the common well-wishers and relations of the parties, talk of resolution of the dispute is going on and it awaits materialization only upon the appearance of the Petitioner. In view of all the above, for the present and pending the disposal of the BLAPL on merit, she urges for grant of interim bail to the Petitioner so as to do the needful in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the age of the victim being fourteen years, the question of consent is of no legal consequence. He, however, submits to have no instruction as to the progress in the matter of resolution of the dispute arising from the misunderstanding between the parties.
5. None appears for the Informant/Victim despite notice.
6. Considering the submissions made and further keeping in view the surrounding circumstances; it is directed that the Petitioner be released on interim bail for a period of two weeks from the date of his actual release from custody on such terms Page 2 of 3 // 3 // and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin of the case with further condition that he will appear in person before the trial court on the date fixed during the period; and will surrender before the said court after expiry of the period of interim bail without fail.
7. List this matter in the week commencing from 31st August, 2021.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash) Judge H Page 3 of 3