Advocates:
['SAMARENDRA BAHADUR', '', 'B B BEHERA', 'A MOHANTY']

Pritam Kerketta

……. Petitioner

-Vrs.-

1.State of Odisha

2. Surendra Bhaisal

……. Opp. Parties

04.

13.01.2021

This

matter

is

taken

up

through

Video

Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 439 of

Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.31 of 2020

arising out of Sundargarh Town P.S. Case No.51 of

2020 pending in the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge -cum- Presiding Officer, Special Court

(POCSO), Sundargarh for offences punishable under

sections 363/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and

section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The petitioner moved an application for bail

before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge

-cum- Presiding Officer, Special Court (POCSO),

Sundargarh which was rejected on 28.07.2020.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the

notice on the informant-opposite party no.2 is

sufficient.

None appears on behalf of the opposite party

no.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.03.2020

BLAPL No. 5580 of 2020

and he has been charge sheeted under sections

363/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of

the POCSO Act and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the

victim indicates that she is a consenting party and

therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be

favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State on the other

hand submitted that the date of birth of the victim is

03.04.2006 and the occurrence in question took place

on 03.03.2020 and therefore the victim has not even

completed the age of fourteen years.

Perused the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the

victim as well as the medical examination report which

indicates that there is sign of recent sexual intercourse

and there is presence of hymeneal tear at 6 O’ clock,

position which was found bleeding on touch and there

was also presence of painful tenderness.

In view of the age of the victim and her 164

Cr.P.C. statement as well as the medical examination

report, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the

petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.

The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer

for bail after examination of the victim in the trial

Court.

Taking into account the period of detention of

the petitioner in judicial custody, the learned trial

Court shall do well to expedite the trial and at the first

instance take steps for examination of the victim.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted

on proper application.

sisir

…………………..……

S.K. Sahoo, J.