Jagannath Kumar Padhi vs State Of Orissa

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant. He submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 7th December, 2023 made by the Sessions-Special Judge. He draws attention to reason given for rejecting the bail application being investigation of the case under progress. He submits, investigation has since been concluded and charge-sheet filed on 10th January, 2024. Impugned order be set aside and his client enlarged on bail.

Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and opposes the appeal.

It appears from order sheet, co-ordinate Bench recorded by order dated 6th February, 2024, service was made sufficient on informant as on 2nd February, 2024. Respondent no.2 (informant) goes unrepresented.

Reason given in impugned order for rejecting the bail application is reproduced below.

“The investigation of the case is under progress. The informant/ victim in her statements have vividly described about the incident. The victim is a poor woman and is working as a maidservant in the house of the accused. It is alleged that the accused taking advantage of his position committed repeated rape upon the victim without her consent, thereby causing her pregnancy. From the medical examination report of the victim, it appears that she is pregnant of 23 weeks on the date of her examination.”

Considering materials reflected in impugned order and that investigation has resulted in filing of charge-sheet on 10th January, 2024, the reason given in impugned order no longer holds good.

Appellant be enlarged on bail upon furnishing security of ₹25,000/- by bond with two sureties of like amount, to satisfaction of the trial Court. Appellant is required to appear on every date of hearing of the trial.

The appeal is disposed of.

.……………………………