High CourtsSingle Bench

Chittaranjan Bagal vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 26 June 2024 · Citation: (2024) 06 OHC CK 0117

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Mohapatra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(3) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 5447 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 496 words

A.K. Mohapatra, J

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 88 of 2021, arising out of Khunta P.S Case No. 187 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act, Baripada for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376(3) of IPC and u/s 6 of the POCSO Act.

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner initially the Petitioner was released on bail by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act, Baripada on 01.09.2021. Further contended that the Petitioner participated in the trial, but, on 10.04.2024 he could not appear. Accordingly, learned trial court has issued NBW against the present petitioner. In execution of NBW, the Petitioner has been taken into custody on 06.05.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that due to communication gap, the Petitioner could not appear before the trial court. Further contended that none appearance is not intentionally. Therefore, now the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which imposed by this Court in the event he is released on bail.

5.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that in the event this court released the Petitioner on bail, stringent conditions may impose to ensure that he shall appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail subject to imposition of stringent conditions.

7.

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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 that:-

I. The petitioner shall not harass, threaten, terrorize the prosecution witnesses;

II. shall not default in attendance of the court during trial on each date of posting;

III. shall appear before the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight for a period of three months preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1 P.M., thereafter once in a month till conclusion of the trial; and

IV. shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the trial court.

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail.

8.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

……………………………