Chhotray @ Chhatray Munda vs State Of Odisha And Another

G. Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Turumunga P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 corresponding to Trial Case No. 148-35 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTSC), Keonjhar, for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 363/506/376 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act, on the allegation of kidnapping the victim and committing rape and penetrative sexual assault upon her.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner is languishing inside jail custody since last two years, but the trial is yet to be concluded and all the materials witnesses have already been examined, and there being no Presiding Officer in the learned trial Court, the trial will take obviously some more time and, therefore, the Petitioner may kindly be granted bail for non-conclusion of the trial within the stipulated period as prescribed by Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.

On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Roul, learned ASC by drawing attention of the Court to the deposition of the victim prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner.

Perused the report submitted by the learned Adhoc District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Keonjhar and such report was submitted by the in-charge Presiding Officer. It is also stated in the report that the Petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2021 and in the meanwhile, 9 out of 23 charge-sheeted witnesses have already been examined in this case and, thereby, the trial would obviously take some time to be concluded. It is also not disputed that the victim has already been examined along with her parents and there appears little doubt about tampering of the evidence of these three witnesses who are material witnesses to the prosecution case. Criminal trial does not mean inflicting punishment to the accused, but it is designed to find out the real culprit and punish him as per the law. Since the trial in this case is yet to be concluded even after incarceration of the petitioner for near about two years and five months, the conditional liberty will prevail over the custody of the Petitioner for indefinite period without any trial by applying the mandate of Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act

In the aforesaid situation, 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 long incarceration of the Petitioner and absence of any criminal antecedent being reported against the Petitioner, this Court admits the Petitioner to bail.

Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed and the Petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties 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 attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with,

(iii) the Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case,

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners 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.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

………………………..