Orissa High Court
Manasi Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 8 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.3849 of 2023
Manasi Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Shashanka Patra, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 08.05.2023
02. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the Petitioner and the State.
2. Perused the case record. By means of this application, the
Petitioner seeks grant of bail U/s.438 Cr.P.C. in apprehension of
arrest for her alleged involvement in the offences U/s. 366-
a/370/34, I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(r)(z) & 3(2)(va) of the SC
& ST (PoA) Act in connection with G.R. Case No.31 of 2023
arising out of Bangiriposi P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 pending in the
court of the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge,
Mayurbhanja, Baripada.
3. Allegedly, the present Petitioner along with her husband to have
taken the victim girl out of the custodial keeping of their guardian
without their knowledge, along with two of her friends who are
stated to be minor, induced all of them to go to Digha. On being
contacted by the brother of the victim, she informed to have been
accompanied by the present Petitioner and her husband along with
their children and thereafter she switched off the phone. The brother
// 2 //
of the victim followed them and after a long chase, when they asked
the Petitioner to stop the vehicle, the Petitioner and her husband
dropped the three minor girls on the road and left.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner had no intention to kidnap the children in as much as all
the three minor girls volunteered to come with them to visit Digha,
and as such there was no ill intention of kidnapping. According to
the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the allegations also do not
make out a case for the offence under the SC & ST (PoA) Act.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that
the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sections 161 & 164,
Cr.P.C. substantially implicates the present Petitioner and her
husband in the alleged offences. He further submits that the
Petitioner is well aware of the fact that the three minor girls are
belonging to Scheduled Tribe community.
6. The F.I.R. prima facie discloses the offence under Sections
3(1)(r)(z) & 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act on the allegation
that the victim was taken out of the custodial keeping of the
guardian without permission, while the girls are members of the
Scheduled Tribe community which was known to the Petitioner.
7. In view of the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC & ST
(PA) Act, the present application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable. The issue has been examined by the Apex Court in
the matter of Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others,
reported in (2020) 1 OLR SC 419. In paragraph-10 of the said
judgment, it has been held that the provision of Section 438, Cr.P.C.
shall not apply to the case involving offence under SC & ST (PA)
// 3 //
Act, 1989. While saying so the Apex Court has further observed
that, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case or
applicability of the provision of the Act, the bar created by Sections
18 & 18-A of the Act shall not apply.
8. Further, this Court in Pramod Kumar Ray and others v. State of
Orissa, reported in (2017) 67 OCR 309, in the light of the
principles laid down by the Apex Court, reiterated the same
principles. Hence, this present application is disposed of with the
following observation.
(i) In the event the Petitioner surrenders and moves for bail
before the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No.31 of 2023 arising
out of Bangiriposi P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 within three
weeks from today, before the court in seisin over the matter
the Petitioner shall serve copy of the bail application on the
learned PP/Special PP as required by him for the purpose of
notice to the victim or his/her counsel or dependent.
(ii) It is further directed that, on advance intimation, the Case
Diary and other relevant materials be made available to the
concerned court by the date of surrender.
9. The learned Court is further directed to consider the case of the
Petitioner in accordance with law upon verification of the
antecedents and injuries, if not grievous, and shall dispose of the
application on the very same day as far as possible, strictly on its
own merit.
10. The Court is also not precluded from granting interim protection
to the Petitioner in appropriate circumstances but not in a routine
manner.
// 4 //
11. However, this order is subject to verification of criminal
antecedents of the Petitioner.
12. It is made clear that the court concerned is to apply its own
wisdom in allowing / rejecting the Petition for bail keeping in view
the gravity of the offence, circumstance of the crime and severity of
the punishment. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
SAMIR Digitally signed by
SAMIR KUMAR
KUMAR PARIDA
Date: 2023.05.09
PARIDA 12:13:34 +05'30'
S.K. Parida
