Bail may be granted when investigations are complete, charge sheets filed, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence, even amid serious allegations.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Brahmagiri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 125 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Brahmagiri under Sections 376, 506, 379 of IPC.

2. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected vide order 12.09.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in B.A. No. 82/806 of 2023.

3. The prosecution allegation in brief is that the victim informant is a house wife and she has a nine year old son. She knows the petitioner who belongs to a nearby village. In the year 2022, in the month of December he had sent her a friend request on facebook and treating her as a sister he was talking with her and was also visiting her in her house. On 20.05.2023, at about 8.00 a.m., when her husband and son were not at home, he entered inside the house and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. When she protested, he clicked her nude photographs and threatened that if she complained to her husband, he would make her nude photographs viral in facebook and would kill her and her husband and son while leaving, he took away her Samsung Galaxy mobile.

4. I have heard Mr. B.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case diary.

5. Mr. B.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that false allegations have been made against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is about 10 years younger than the victim and the informant has developed friendship with the petitioner through a social media site and they were in a relationship. She had taken money from him on different occasions with him. She had taken some pictures of their intimate moments and she was blackmailing the petitioner to make the photographs viral when he asked for his money and demanded further money from him. So the petitioner took away her mobile phone. When the petitioner refused to pay further money or return her phone, she lodged the FIR against him. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2023 and in the meantime, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed on 05.09.2023, for which there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with any evidence if he is released on bail. He also submits that the investigation reveals that the petitioner has not circulated any photographs of the informant on social media for which offences under the IT Act are not included in the charge sheet.

6. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has taken advantage of the victim-informant who is a married lady and has threatened to circulate their intimate photographs over social media for which, he does not deserve to be granted bail.

7. Dinabandhu Jena, Tapan Kumar Jena, Pita Pradhan and Santosh Behera who have been examined during investigation have stated before the police that petitioner and informant know each other since long and they used to come together to the petitioner’s village and travel to different places together and were on good terms . The petitioner used to help the informant and the informant had borrowed money from the petitioner. As she suddenly stopped talking to him, the petitioner had gone to her house on 20.05.2023 to ask for return of the money and reason for not talking to him, but since she did not give any reply, he got annoyed and had physical relations with her against her wishes. A