Orissa High Court
BLAPL/1577/2018 on 9 May, 2018
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S. K. Sahoo
BLAPL No. 1577 of 2018
04. 09.05.2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
This is an application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. in connection with Special G.R. Case No.20 of
2018 corresponding to Itamati P.S. Case No.04 of 2018
pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nayagarh for offences
punishable under sections 363/506/109/344/376/34 of
the of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 6 and 17 of
the POCSO Act and sections 9 & 10 of the Prohibition of
Child Marriage Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2018 and in
the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted under
sections363/506/376(2)(n)/344/323/466/468/471/109/
34 of the of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4,6 & 17
of the POCSO Act and sections 9 & 10 of the Prohibition
of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the victim appears to
be a consenting party and she moved with the petitioner
from place to place and resided with the petitioner as his
wife and therefore, the ingredients of the offences are
not attracted. He further submitted that the ossification
test report indicates that the victim was more than 18
years and therefore, the bail application may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the informant opposed the
2
prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner
produced a forged transfer certificate of the victim
before the Investigating Officer showing her date of
birth as 18.03.1999 and in that transfer certificate the
victim's name has been mentioned as Smt. 'X'. Learned
counsel further submitted that the 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of the victim would reveal the manner in
which she was raped and tortured in the hands of the
petitioner and therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of
bail.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that
in the case diary, two transfer certificates of the victim
are available, one which shows her date of birth as
k
15.03.2001 which obviously indicates that the victim is a
minor and other which shows her date of birth is
18.03.1999. He further submits that the certificate in
which the victim's date of birth is mentioned as
18.03.1999 was produced by the petitioner before the
I.O. and during course of investigation, the I.O. visited
the School where the victim was prosecuting her studies
and it is found that her date of birth as per the school
admission register is 15.03.2001 and therefore, the
petitioner produced a forged certificate before the I.O.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of
accusation against the petitioner, 164 Cr.P.C. statement
of the victim, the conduct of the petitioner in producing
3
forged certificate relating to the age of the victim before
the police, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected.
The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail after the examination of the victim in the trial Court.
.......................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
4 5