Jagabandhu Chand vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.6049 of 2022 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.496 of 2022 for commission of alleged offences under Sections 341/328/324/354C/370/386/387/388/389/419/420/465/506/120-B of IPC read with Section 66(E)/67 of IT Act.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar by order dated 30.11.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2022 and as charge sheet has already been filed on 01.02.2023, taking into account the nature of allegations, his further continuance in custody is punitive.

It is alleged that the petitioner, his wife and cousin brother of the petitioner’s wife took objectionable photographs of the informant after lacing her food with stupefying substance. Threatening to circulate the same, the informant was forced into physical relationship with several persons. And, it is the further case of the prosecution that intimate moments of the informant with those individuals were video-graphed. And, for not publicizing the same, hefty amount as ransom was collected by the petitioner and his wife from such individual(s) and in the entire process the informant was used as a conduit.

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, the allegation is more or less against his wife who is in custody and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused merely because he is the husband of the principal accused.

A. Hence, it is submitted that taking into account the nature of accusation qua the petitioner his further continuance in custody is unwarranted.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is equally responsible and is a partner in crime and due to escape from his complicity, is conveniently shifting the blame on to his wife, the co-accused.

This Court perused the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant and other connected material on record.

From the tenor of the same, limited role of the petitioner is clearly borne out.

On a conspectus of materials on record, taking into account period of custody and filing of charge sheet, this Court directs the petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the complicity of the wife of the petitioner who is a co-accused and the allegations in respect of the said accused has to be independently examined by the learned Court in seisin.

Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall not leave the State of Odisha without the express permission of the Court in seisin and shall not in any way try to intimidate or threaten the informant.

It shall be open to the informant to seek variance of this order, in the event there is any threat perception.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

…………………………….