SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ori) 52

S.K.PANIGRAHI
G. Achyut Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.P. Dhal, Advocate, B.S. Dasparida, Advocate, S.K. Dash, Advocate, S. Mohapatra, Advocate, K. Mohanty, Advocate, Sangram Keshari Mishra, Advocate
Cases Referred
Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 6 Scale 211
Arak Sk. vs. State of West Bengal, (2001) CrLJ 416
Hari Majhi vs. The State., (1990) CrLJ 650
Holman vs. The Queen, (1970) WAR 2
Jayanti Rani Panda vs. State of West Bengal and Ors, (1984) CrLJ 1535
MirWali Mohammad vs. The State of Bihar, (1990) 2 PLJR 375
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Mashrashtra and Ors, (2019) 9 SCC 608
Queen vs. Clarence, (1888) 22 QBD 23
Saleha Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, (1989) CrLJ 202
Uday vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46
Vinod Kumar vs. State of Kerala, (2014) 5 SCC 678
Yedla Srinibas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 615

JUDGMENT

S K Panigrahi, J. - The Present Application seeks to challenge the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput-Jeypore in G.R.Case No.1013 of 2019 wherein the prayer for bail was rejected. The Appellant herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 493/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015 which, subsequently, turned to be a case under Sections 493/313/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015.

2. The allegations in the F.I.R. are summarized below:

    (a) The complainant victim Ms. X, aged about 19, belongs to ST community lodged a complaint on 27.11.2019 before the Police Station Patangi, District-Koraput. The content of the complaint as set out implicates the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 493/313/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015.

    (b)According to her complaint, the appellant and the victim are the resident of the same village and known to each other. The Appellant had given her a mobile phone for facilitating regular communication and he had taken her for outing on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top