Orissa High Court
Ranjan Oram vs State Of Odisha on 27 June, 2024
Bench: S.K.Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.
No.453 of 2017
Ranjan Oram ..... Appellant/Petitioner
/Petitioner
Ms. A. Ray, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. L.N. Patel,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/Opp.
/Opp. Party
Mr. Arupananda Das
Das,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
27.06.2024
Order No. Misc. Case No.1557 of 2018
05. This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
As per order dated 21.05.2024, learned counsel for
the State has produced the written instruction received
from the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur
wherein it is mentioned that notice on the victim has
already been served. The written instruction is available
in its connected matter i.e. CRLA no.721 of 2016.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant
appellant-petitioner
petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
Perused
sed the impugned judgment.
The appellant
appellant-petitioner along with others has
been convicted for the offences punishable under
sections 376D/341/323/506/120B of the I.P.C., sections
66E/67B of the I.T. Act,
Act, 2000 (for short, "2000 Act")
and section 6 of the P
POCSO
OCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs), in default, to undergo
R.I. for a period of two years of the offence under
section 376D of the I.P.C. read with section 120B of the
I.P.C. and in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act, no
separate sentence has been awarded for the offence
under section 6 of the POCSO Act, to undergo R.I. for a
period of one year for the offence under section 66E of
the 2000 Act and R.I. for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,00,000/
Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a further period of six months for the
offence under section 67B of the 2000 Act read with
section 120B of the I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for
six months on each count for the offences under
sections
s 323/506 of the I.P.C. and to undergo
imprisonment for one month for the offence under
section 341 of the I.P.C. and no separate sentence has
been awarded for the offence under section 120B of the
I.P.C. in view of the sentences awarded for each of the
offence
fence and all the substantive sentences were directed
to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge
-cum- Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur vide judgment
and order dated 25.08.2016 passed in S.T. Case No.219
of 2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
petitioner submitted that
the petitioner, who was initially taken into judicial
custody on 20.10.2014,
20.10.2014 was on parole for a certain
period and he is in actual custody for more than seven
years and two hundred twenty eight days. Learned
counsel further submitt
submitted
ed that the as per the evidence
of the victim (P.W.1), the role which has been attributed
against the petitioner is that he along with one Muna
Oram caught hold of the boyfriend of the victim,
namely, Amrut Prasad Nahak (P.W.4) and did not
actually participa
pate in the commission of rape. Learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a young
boy aged about twenty one years and has got no
criminal antecedent and one of the co-
co-accused
Jayamangal Pradhan has already been released on bail
and since there
re is no chance of early hearing of the
appeal in the near future
future, even though paper book has
already been prepared, the bail application of the
petitioner may be favourably considered.
As per the order dated 21.05.2024, learned
counsel for the State was asked to obtain instruction on
the criminal antecedent so also the possibility of
creation of law and order problem, in case the petitioner
is enlarged on bail.
Today, learned counsel for
for the State has produced
the written instruction dated 19.06.2024 received from
the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur wherein it is
mentioned that on verification of the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner, it was found that there is
no criminal antecedent against him except this case. It
is further mentioned in the report that on verification of
the locality, it came to light that the accused
Jayamangal Pradhan has already been released on bail
since 2017 and he is living with his family members
peacefully and so far as the petitioner is concerned,
there would be no law and order situation, in case he is
released on bail as during COVID
C situation when he was
out of the custody on parole, he spent time with the
local public smoothly. The report is available in its
connected appeal i.e. CRLA No.721 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
co-accused
accused Jayamangal Pradhan, who has already been
released on bail, stands in a completely different footing
inasmuch as the driver, he carried the victim (P.W.1) as
well as P.W.4 for some time in his auto rickshaw to a
particular place, whereafter when P.W.1 and P.W.4 were
having a discussion beneath a tree, the occurrence in
question took place. Learned counsel for the State,
however does not d
dispute
ispute that from the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.4 who stated about the role attributed
against the petitioner, i.e. he along with co
co--accused
Muna Oram caught hold of the boyfriend of the victim,
who has been examined as P.W.4.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, the
nature of overt act attributed against the petitioner as
per the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and her boyfriend
(P.W.4) and absence
absence of any criminal antecedent against
the petitioner and his conduct during period when he
was on parole and absence of any chance of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future, we are inclined
to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the appellant
appellant-petitioner
titioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court with such terms and conditions
as the
he learned Court may deem just and proper
including the condition that he shall not involve in any
criminal activities and shall not try to come in contact
with the victim in any manner.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
bai
Accordingly, the Misc. Case is disposed of.
Issue certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Dash
Judge
sipun
Designation: Senior Stenographer
