G. Satapathy, J
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Kalinganagar P.S. Case No.140 of 2022 arising out
of C.T. Spl. (POCSO) Case No.72 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO
Act, Jajpur, being charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) of IPC read with Section 6 of
POCSO Act, on the allegation of kidnapping the victim and committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her.
3. In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by placing the deposition of the victim, submits
that the petitioner has already been in custody for more than one year, but the trial is yet to be completed, no matter only five witnesses have been
examined. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that although the victim has been described as a minor, but there is no role on the part of the
petitioner to kidnap the victim or commit any sexual assault upon her, rather the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted
by him that the materials placed on record could not disclose any case against the petitioner and the victim having already been examined in this case,
there remains no apprehension for tampering of evidence by the petitioner. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays to grant
bail to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by submitting inter alia that the
victim was aged about 13 years at the relevant time of occurrence and, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner deserves to be rejected.
5. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for the informant, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending
inter alia that since, the victim was less than 14 years, her consent was immaterial and he by specifically drawing attention of the Court to the question
put forth to the victim by the learned trial Court and the answer given by the victim to such question, submits that there is ample threat from the side of
the petitioner to the victim and, therefore, the petitioner should not be granted bail.
6. At the outset, this Court is informed that the petitioner has been detained in custody since 10.07.2022 and in the meanwhile, more than a year has
elapsed, but the trial is yet to be concluded and only five witnesses have been examined till today. Section 35(2) of POCSO Act mandates that trial
shall be concluded as far as possible within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of offence.
7. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of
accusations raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the mode and manner of implication of the petitioner in this case and taking into account
the progress of trial including examination of the victim, which persuades this Court for considering little apprehension of tampering of evidence of
material witnesses and last but not the least, taking into account the pre trial detention of the petitioner since more than a year and the principle that
bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and regard being had to the mandate of Section 35(2) of POCSO Act, this Court admits the petitioner to bail.
8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms
and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail,
(ii) the petitioner shall appear before the Court in seisin of the case on each and every date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case
the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the
Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law,
(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case,
(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for
six(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody,
(v) in case the petitioner misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence, proclamation U/S.82 of Cr.P.C. is issued and the petitioner fails to appear
before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the learned trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceeding against him for offence U/S.174-A of the
IPC in accordance with law and
(vi) the petitioner shall not contact the victim in any way or mode.
The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.
It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the
above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the
petitioner in future for grave and serious offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case.
9. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
……………………………………
