Nabin Dharua vs State Of Orissa

A.K. Mohapatra, J

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

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.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.358 of 2024, arising out of Khaparakhol P.S. Case No.74 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 511 of IPC.

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 is in custody since 16.03.2024. He contended that investigation has progressed substantially. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to the allegations made in the F.I.R., submitted that there is no under Section 376 is made out against the present petitioner. On the basis of the F.I.R. allegation, contended that only allegation is that he had dragged the victim, after which the victim escaped from the place. Therefore, this Case has been registered against the Petitioner. Learned counsel contended that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that the Petitioner belongs to the locality and there is no chance of absconding. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the Petitioner contended the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature. Further, submits that in the event this Court is released the Petitioner on bail, there is an every possibility that the same would cause delay in conclusion of the trial. Moreover, the Petitioner might threaten the informant and his family members. Therefore, on such ground, learned counsel for the State submitted that the bail application of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

Considering the F.I.R as well as statement of the victim which was produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court observed that the victim has alleged that the Petitioner entered into house in kitchen of the victim while she was cooking. The Petitioner dragged her saree, after which the victim ran away from the spot. Thereafter, it appears that no Section 376 is made out against the present Petitioner.

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.

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 subject to the following terms and conditions:

I) he shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O. as and when his presence is required for investigation;

II) shall not harass, threaten, the informant-victim and her family members;

III) shall not enter into house of the victim while on bail & shall all times stay away from the victim; and

IV) shall make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail;

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

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

..…………………………………