Mantu @ Manaranjan Kandangkel vs State Of Odisha

Savitri Ratho, J

This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Jamda P.S. Case No. 87 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 130 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned P.O., Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanja, Baripada where chargesheet dated 26.12.2023 has been submitted against the petitioner and the main accused Madhusudan Bage for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376-DA, 376 (2) (n) and 34 of IPC read with Section

6 of the POCSO Act.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 03.01.2024 by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanja, Baripada.

The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 26.10.2023, when the victim and her friend were returning from their house after attending the call of nature, the main accused Madhusudan Bage and the present petitioner came on a scooty and while the present petitioner took the friend of the victim from the spot, the main accused Madhusudan Bage lifted the victim behind a bush and committed rape on her. As he had torn her clothes, she returned in a naked condition to her home.

Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the main accused in the case and he is in custody since 28.10.2023 and investigation has been completed in the meanwhile. He further submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner has raped the victim or misbehaved with her friend and the main accused is in custody. He also submits that since the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, his prayer for bail may be sympathetically considered.

Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating that the victim is a minor and it is a case of gang rape because the petitioner along with the main accused have restrained the victim on the way and while the petitioner took friend of the victim on his scooty, the main accused has dragged the victim to a bush and committed rape on her. The petitioner is therefore responsible for the rape of the victim though he may not have actually raped her for which he does not deserve to be released on bail.

Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the manner in which the crime has been committed, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.

The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.

It is open to the petitioner to move the learned court below for bail afresh after examination of the victim girl and her friend in the trial.

At this juncture, Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as one of the offences is under Section 376 –DA of the IPC, notice should be issued to the informant before disposal of the bail application.

Since I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, I do not find any reason to issue notice to the informant or hear him. However if the informant is aggrieved by this order rejecting the prayer for bail, it is open to him to move this Court for variation/ modification / recall of this order.

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

.…………………………..