Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho, J.
Ramesh Chandra Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha & Anr. - Respondents
CRLA No. 640 of 2020
Decided On : 04-06-2021
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.374, S.164
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.114, S.34, S.341, S.354, S.354(a), S.354(b), S.366, S.376, S.448, S.506, S.511
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT : S.14(a), S.3(1)(r)(s), S.3(2)(v), S.3(2)(v)(a)
Headnote
BAIL - SC & ST (POA) Act - 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act, Section 374 Cr.P.C. - 341/354-A/354-B/376/511 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act - The court discussed the legal provisions under SC & ST (POA) Act and I.P.C. including the interpretation of Section 376/511 IPC and the relevance of previous court decisions in similar cases. The court emphasized the importance of balancing factors such as the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and prima facie view of the accused's involvement in determining bail. The court also highlighted the need to avoid pre-trial punishment and the right to bail as a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a local Sarpanch, was accused of demanding sexual favors from a victim who had applied for a house under the PMAY Scheme. He allegedly misbehaved with her and attempted to rape her. The appellant sought bail, claiming false allegations due to political rivalry, while the informant opposed bail, citing the appellant's influence and likelihood to commit similar offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had been in custody since November 2020, and the investigation had been completed. It emphasized the absence of life imprisonment or death penalty for the alleged offences and the appellant's status as a permanent resident, leading to the decision to grant bail with specific conditions to address the informant's concerns.
Issues: The key issues included the appellant's detention, the nature of the allegations, and the potential threat posed by the appellant if released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the balancing of factors such as the nature of the offence, severity of the punishment, and prima facie view of the accused's involvement. It also considered the right to bail as a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system and the need to avoid pre-trial punishment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and granted bail to the appellant with specific conditions to address the concerns raised by the informant. It also allowed the State and the victim to file appropriate applications for modification, recalling, or cancellation of bail if the appellant violated the imposed conditions.
JUDGMENT
This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.
1. I have heard Mr. Devasish Panda, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Satyabrata Senapati, learned counsel for the Respondent No 2 - victim.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Ramesh Chandra Sahu under Section 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act read with Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.35 of 2020 corresponding to M. Rampur P.S. Case No.195 of 2020 registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/354-A/354-B/376/511 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, refusing to release the appellant on bail.
3. The allegations in brief against the appellant is that petitioner had applied for a house under the PMAY Scheme before the accused who is the local Sarpanch and he had collected her phone number and had been demanding sexual favours from the victim, which she had been ignoring. On 18.10.2020 in the morning, he entered her house and finding her alone, misbehaved with her and threw her on the cot and tried to rape her by removing her pant. But she kicked him and escaped and when she questioned him about his conduct, he abused her and threatened to kill her by saying that he belongs to the ruling party.
4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in judicial custody since 19.11.2020 and in the meanwhile investigation has been completed for which no useful purpose will be served by detaining the appellant in custody any further. He has also submitted that charge sheet has been against him mechanically for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/354-A/354-B/376/511 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act even though a prima facie case under Section 376/511 IPC is not made out against him . He further submits that the victim has made false allegations against due to political rivalry and when sent to the DHH, Bhawanipatna for her medical examination and opinion, she refused to be examined. He has relied on the decisions in Hari Mohapatra vs. State : 1996 ( 10) OCR 533: 1996 (1) OLR 488 and Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar : (2006) 8 SCC 560 in support of his prayer for bail.
5. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the informant has objected to grant of bail stating that the appellant being a rowdy and influential person is likely to commit similar offence, abscond, tamper with of the prosecution evidence and threaten the victim and her family members. He has filed a written note of submission, wherein, it has been mentioned that during course of investigation, the police has seized the mobile phone of the accused and victim and also seized one Moser bear Micro SD 2 GB memory card in which the conversation of both the parties has been recorded by Nigam Sahu on his mobile as the mobile of the victim did not have such facility. After examination of said voice recording by Sri. G.N.Manipatra OPS-1 (SB), Addl. SP IUCAW, Kalahandi, opined that it is a true case. The verification report, supports the allegation that the appellant had called up the victim over telephone and was compelling her to keep sexual relation with him. There are sufficient materials of sexual assault, outraging of modesty against the appellant.
6. Mr. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State has placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and opposed the prayer for bail stating that the appellant has misused his position as Sarpanch and instead of helping the victim who belongs to the weaker section to avail various benefits for which she is eligible has tried to exploit her and humiliate her. He has also submitted that the victim has been medically examined and no external injuries and her refusal for internal examinati
