Kunu Behera vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Sahoo, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).

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

This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Jenapur P.S. Case No.48 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. (Spl.) (POCSO) Case No. 113 of 2020 pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Jajpur for alleged commission of offences under sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of POCSO Act.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Jajpur vide order dated 13.01.2021.

In pursuance of the order dated 14.09.2021, Sri Shrabana Kumar Moharana, Inspector in-charge of Jenapur Police Station is present. He has made necessary arrangement for appearance of the informant (opposite party no.2), who is the father of the victim. On being asked to the informant, he submitted that he has no objection if the petitioner is enlarged on bail and he has also received the views of the victim, who has already delivered a child and she has also no objection if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.10.2019 and charge sheet has already been submitted under sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of POCSO Act. He further submitted that till date, trial has not yet commenced and therefore, in view of the available materials on record, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail mainly on the ground that the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence.

It appears from the case records that the date of birth of the victim is 27.02.2004 and the occurrence in question took place on 03.03.2019, which means the victim was fifteen years of age at the time of occurrence. In the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim has stated how the petitioner took her forcibly, kept physical relationship with her after performing marriage in a temple for which she became pregnant and gave birth to a male child.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nature and gravity of accusation against the petitioner, the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, who was minor at the time of occurrence, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail, I direct the learned trial Court to expedite the framing of charge, if the same has not yet been done and examine the victim at the first instance. The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the victim in the trial Court.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed.

A copy of the order be communicated to the Court concerned for compliance.

.............................................