Orissa High Court
Tulugu Balaram vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opp. ... on 23 November, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.7113 of 2021
Tulugu Balaram .... Petitioner
Mr.S.S. Ray(2), Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.D.K.Pani,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 23.11.2021
02. The matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/ physical mode).
Mr. Susanta Kumar Sahoo, the Inspector in- charge of Kasinagar police station, who is the Investigating Officer of the case, is present through virtual mode. He submitted that the notice on the informant has been made sufficient and intimation was given to her to appear through virtual mode, but today when she was telephonically contacted, she stated that she had been to a place in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Since the informant seems to be not interested to have her say in this bail application in spite of service of notice by the Inspector in-charge of Kasinagar police station, hearing on this bail // 2 // application is taken up.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Kasinagar P.S. Case No.59 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.42 of 2020 (26/2020) pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge
-cum- Special Judge, Paralakhemundi for alleged commission of offences under sections 452, 376(3), 292, 292-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, section 6 of POCSO Act and section 67-B of the Information Technology Act.
The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of Special Judge, Paralakhemundi, which was rejected on 02.08.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.06.2021 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 452, 376(3), 292, 292-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, section 6 of POCSO Act and section 67-B of the Information Technology Act. Learned counsel placed the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the bail application and submitted that the victim has named three persons in her statement to have committed the rape on her and those three persons are Karanam Rama, Kadagala Bhaskar Rao and Page 2 of 4 // 3 // Polaki Kama Raju. It is further submitted that nothing has been stated by the victim against the petitioner and the petitioner has also not been named in the first information report, which was lodged by none else than the mother of the victim and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, produced the case diary and placed the 161 Cr.PC. statement of the victim and stated that the victim named the petitioner to have committed sexual intercourse with her showing the video clippings. However, he stated that the 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded after recording of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement in which the victim has not named the petitioner.
The Inspector in-charge of Kasinagar police station submitted that except this case, there is no other criminal antecedent against the petitioner.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of accusation against the petitioner, since neither in the F.I.R. lodged by the mother of the victim nor in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, anything has been stated against the petitioner, taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Page 3 of 4// 4 // Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper including the conditions that the petitioner shall not try to keep any contact with the victim, shall not try to tamper with the evidence, shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date to which the case would be posted for trial and shall appear before the Inspector in-charge of Kasinagar police station once in a week in between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for a period of three months from the date of release. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for communication to the Inspector in-charge of Kasinagar police station.
Let a copy of the order be communicated to the Court concerned.
PKSahoo ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Page 4 of 4