Dillia @ Dillip Kumar Barik vs State Of Odisha And Another

Savitri Ratho, J

This is the second application of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in this Court in connection with Banpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2023 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 420 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) -cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar (Circuit Court at Banpur) where the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.

BLAPL No. 801 of 2024 filed by the petitioner earlier had been dismissed on 13.02.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to move the learned Court below for bail afresh after examination of the victim girl.

The victim has been examined on 01.03.2024 thereafter the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial court on 04.03.2024 stating that five witnesses including the informant have corroborated the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused.

The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of occurrence, the accused kidnapped the minor victim and took her to Bangalore and then to Hyderabad and kept physical relations with her repeatedly. After she was recovered, it was found that she had been taken outside the State.

Mr. Gorekhanath Das, learned counsel appearing from the virtual High Court at Bhubaneswar on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.08.2023 and in the meanwhile, the evidence of the victim has been recorded on 01.03.2024 and she has not supported the prosecution case and he has filed the copy of her deposition at Annexure-1 to the bail application.

Ms. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence and the petitioner has taken exploited her innocence.

Perused the deposition of the victim which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this application. Perusal of the same reveals that as she did support the prosecution case she has been put questions under Section 154 of the Evidence Act by the prosecution and she has stated in her evidence that the accused has not kept physical relationship with her in Banglore nor has he kept physical relationship with her during her stay with him in a rented house in Hyderabad and she has also stated in cross-examination that she went with the accused to Banglore and Hyderabad on her own will and the accused has never kept any physical relationship with her nor has he ever physically assaulted her.

Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, his period of detention in custody and the deposition of the victim, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

The petitioner – Dillia @ Dillip Kumar Barik shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) He shall not go near the house of the victim girl and try to contact her.

(iii) He shall remain present in Court on each date, it is fixed for trial.

Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of bail/recall of this order.

Observations in this order have been made for the sole purpose of consideration of the prayer for bail and shall not influence the learned trial court at the time of hearing of the case.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application..

…………………………