High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 03 OHC CK 0141

Punam Kuldip @ Behera vs State Of Odisha & Anr

Orissa High Court · Decided on 18 March 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sashikanta Mishra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRLMA No. 30 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 330 words

Sashikanta Mishra, J

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 by this Court as per order dated 24.06.2022 in BLAPL No. 367 of 2022. As directed by this Court, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput while releasing the petitioner on bail vide order dated 29.06.2022 imposed the following conditions in addition to the conditions imposed by this Court.

“(i) The accused shall not try to come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) He shall not make himself involved in any criminal activities while on bail”

4.

It is alleged that the accused-opposite party No.2 threatened the petitioner after abusing her in obscene language and tried to force her to compromise the case earlier registered against him. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged an FIR before the Sunabeda Police Station leading to registration of Sunabeda P.S. Case No.202 dated 13.12.2022 under Sections 294/506/34 of IPC. It is further submitted that after investigation, police have submitted charge sheet against the opposite party No.2 in the case.

5.

In course of hearing, learned State Counsel has produced the case diary including the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Surprisingly, in her statement, the petitioner has not whispered anything whatsoever against the opposite party No.2, rather she has referred to two other persons who had allegedly abused and threatened her. The statement of the victim as above, prima facie, casts a doubt as regards the prosecution case. In any event, it cannot be conclusively said at this stage that the opposite party No.2 had abused and threatened her as alleged in the FIR. Therefore, no violation of the conditions imposed in the order of bail can be readily inferred.

6.

Under such circumstances, I find no merit in this application for cancellation of bail, which is therefore, dismissed.

..……………………………..