Orissa High Court
BLAPL/315/2018 on 26 June, 2018
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S. K. Sahoo
BLAPL No.315 of 2018
07. 26.06.2018 Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Chita Ranjan Swain, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel for the State and Miss Dipti Rekha Nanda,
learned counsel appearing for the informant.
This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C.
in connection with Special Case No.80 of 2017 arising out
of Joda P.S. Case No.86 of 2017 pending in the Court of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge,
Keonjhar for offences punishable under sections 376-D
/377/354/354-A/354-B/354-C/354-D/292/294/506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, sections 6/8/10/12 of POCSO Act,
2012, section 6 of Indecent representation of Woman
(Prohibition) Act, 1986, section 75 of J.J.(CPC) Act, 2015
and section 25 Arms Act.
The petitioner moved an application for bail
before the learned A.D.J. -cum- Special Judge, Keonjhar
which was rejected on 06.01.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while filing
the surrender certificate of the petitioner contended that
the petitioner was the Headmaster of Gobindapur Primary
School, Gobindapur, Joda, Keonjhar and he is in judicial
custody since 05.08.2017 and in the meantime after
completion of investigation, charge sheet has been
submitted. It is further contended that initially the case was
registered under sections 354-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal
sisir Code and section 10 of the POCSO Act but subsequently
charge sheet has been submitted under higher offences. It
2
is further contended that initially the case was being
investigated by S.I. of police, Joda police station and on
10.08.2017 the Inspector of Police, DCRB, Keonjhar took
over charge of investigation as per the order of the S.P.,
Keonjhar and then on 17.08.2017, the Dy. Superintendent
of Police (Accts.), Keonjhar took over charge of
investigation. He submitted that the petitioner has already
been dismissed from his service. He further submitted that
the statements of the victims indicate that the main
allegation is against co-accused Radhakanta Nayak who
was the cook in the Boarding Hostel of Gobindapur Primary
School and the ingredients of the offences are not made out
against the petitioner. He further submitted that the
medical examination report also does not indicate any kind
of external injury on any of the victims and therefore, the
bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victims
in their 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. statements have
implicated the petitioner in the crime and there are
corroborative materials available on record. It is contended
that after the statements of the victims were recorded, the
case turned to one under sections 376-D/377/354/354-
A/354-B/354-C/354-D/292/294/506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, sections 6/8/10/12 of POCSO Act, 2012, section 6 of
Indecent representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986,
section 75 of J.J.(CPC) Act, 2015 and section 25 of the
3
Arms Act. Learned counsel for the State placed the
statements of the witnesses. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the State that in the event the petitioner is
released on bail, he is likely to tamper with the evidence.
Miss Dipti Rekha Nanda, learned counsel
appearing for the informant also vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and contended that the manner in which the
petitioner being the Headmaster of the School and in-
charge of the Boarding Hostel has sexually exploited the
minor girl students, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
It appears that all the victims who are seven in
numbers are within the age group of eight years to twelve
years and they were reading in Class-III, Class-IV and
Class-V. The manner in which the petitioner has been
implicated in the sexual assault of the victim girls and the
possibility of tampering with the evidence in case the
petitioner is released on bail and taking into account the
nature and gravity of the accusation, I am not inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.
The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer
for bail after examination of all the victims in the learned
trial Court.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted
on proper application.
.......................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
4 5