CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Santunu Sahu vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 1 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 OHC CK 0018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Savitri Ratho, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 195(A), 354C, 354D, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506, 507 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66E, 67B · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 12217 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 367 words

Savitri Ratho, J

1.

This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Aska P.S. Case No. 253 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 65 of 2023 in the file of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Berhmapur at Ganjam under Sections 376(2) (n), 376(3), 195(A), 354-C, 354-D, 506 & 507 of IPC and Sections 66-E, 67-B of the I.T. Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2.

The prosecution allegations in brief against the petitioner are that the petitioner and the victim are known to each other since 2 years but one day when the victim had gone to the house of the petitioner, he offered her cold drink after having it, she felt uncomfortable and taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner ravished her and captured the moments by making a video. Thereafter on threat of making the video viral, he continued to ravish the victim. When the victim went to Berhampur to pursue her study, the accused continued to harass her and when she did not respond to his calls, he has uploaded the photographs and videos on instagram.

3.

Mr. B.P. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim girl belong to the same village and were in a relationship but false allegations have been made against him because he had burnt the motor cycle of the informant (father of the victim). He also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2023 and investigation has been completed.

4.

Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the victim is a minor and was continuously harassing the victim and he has a criminal antecedent.

5.

Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the age of the victim girl, I do not consider this to be a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.

6.

The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. But considering the background of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to move the learned trial court for bail afresh after examination of the victim girl.

7.

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

……………………………