Advocates:
['SUJATA JENA', '', 'G B JENA', 'R CH', 'SAHU']

02. 14.09.2021

1.

Since both the applications having arisen out of

Bamunigaon P.S. Case No.40 of 2021, they are heard

together through Hybrid Mode and disposed of by this

common order on consent of the parties.

2.

The

Petitioners

apprehending

their

arrest

in

Bamunigaon P.S. Case No.40 of 2021 corresponding to C.T.

Case No.144 of 2021 pending in the court of learned

J.M.F.C., Daringibadi, registered for alleged commission of

offence punishable under Sections 343/363/365/366/376-

D/506/34 IPC have filed the petitions for their release on pre-

arrest bail.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned

counsel for the State.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK

ABLAPL No.8629 of 2021

Naram @ Nirma Patamajhi & others

…

Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Orissa

…

Opp. Party

ABLAPL No.9303 of 2021

Damian @ Damin Patamajhi

…

Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Orissa

…

Opp. Party

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

ORDER

2

4.

The prosecution allegation reveals that the marriage

proposal of the victim with one Mukunda was advanced by

the petitioners party through his brother Sanjib Patamajhi but

the victim did not agree for the same. Thereafter, one day

when the victim was out of her home with her friend, she was

taken forcibly to the house of Mukunda and confined there.

The parents of the victim knowing the same went to the

house of Mukunda to rescue the victim but the village

gentries demanded Rs.3 lakhs as fine for her release as the

denial of the marriage proposal made, stated to be offensive

to them and for that their honour in the society was affected.

When the parents of the victim expressed their inability to

pay the amount, they took the signature of the parents of the

victim in a plain paper. Then they stated to have stage

managed a marriage of the victim with Mukunda forcibly and

thereafter, six persons stated to have entered the room where

the victim was kept, unrobed her and then Mukunda had

forcibly sexual intercourse with her. Subsequent to the same

3

the parents of the victim giving the impression that they have

accepted the marriage of Mukunda invited victim and

Mukunda to pay a customary visit to their home and both of

them accordingly visited the parental house of the victim.

Three days after when Mukunda wanted to leave for his

village, the victim denied to accompany Mukunda as his wife

to his home and the report was lodged to the Police.

5.

It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioners in ABLAPL No.8629 of 2021 that though the

allegation reveals that the victim was forcibly taken to the

house of Mukunda after denial of the marriage proposal and

effort of the parents of the victim to rescue her persuading

family members of Mukunda failed, still no FIR was lodged

and coupled with the same they paid a visit to the house of

Mukunda knowing about the solemnization of the marriage

with the victim and invited them to pay a customary visit and

accordingly, they both came and thereafter they changed their

mind and lodged a report with due deliberation and

4

concocting the facts to make out a case. The victim is a major

and belongs to a tribal area having their own custom. As

such, no case of rape much less a gang rape is made out.

Hence, the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail, submits

the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in ABLAPL

No.9303 of 2021 echoing the aforesaid submissions made

further submits that since the name of the petitioner has not

been found place in the statement recorded, the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he be released on

pre-arrest bail, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7.

However, learned counsel for the State placing the

statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

submits that the same prima facie