Orissa High Court
Soubhagyaranjan Paikray vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 1 October, 2024
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL No.5686 of 2024
Soubhagyaranjan Paikray ..... Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. Sidhartha Sahu
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
01.10.2024.
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl.
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with
Kundanagari P.S. Case No. 341 of 2023 corresponding to Spl.
G.R. Case no. 96 of 2023 which is pending before the Learned
Court of Additional Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge
POCSO, Kendarapara., for the alleged commission of the
offence under Sections U/s. 363/376-D/323/328/354-
A/354(B)/354(D)/355/368/376(2)(m),376(2)G)/,376(A)/120-
// 2 //
B,201/34 of I.P.C read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act,2012,
Section 67 and 67(A) of the I.T Act, 2000 and Section 6 of the
Indecent Representation of Women's Act.
4. The F.I.R. allegations are that a young girl was accompanied
by two of her brothers to Cuttack after conclusion of her
coaching class. On the way she was given cold drinks, after
taking which she became unconscious. When she regained her
sense she found herself in a hotel room where the so-called
brothers of her friend sexually abused her repeatedly in
presence of her friends who facilitated the act. As a result, she
sustained bleeding injuries on her private parts. The offenders
thereafter left her near Narendrapur and fled away. The victim
was rescued by her family members and thereafter F.I.R. was
lodged.
5. The Petitioner, being the owner of the Hotel in which the
occurrence took place, had earlier approached this Court
seeking pre-arrest bail in ABLAPL No.12397/2023. By a
detailed judgment passed on 10.11.2022, this Court was not
inclined to grant him anticipatory bail on the ground that his
apprehension that he would be arrested in connection with the
case was not based on reasonable premises as he was not
named in the F.I.R.
6. The present application has been filed as in the meantime
investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been
submitted implicating the Petitioner as one of the accused
// 3 //
persons. This, according to the petitioner, gives rise to
reasonable apprehension that he may be arrested in connection
with the case.
7. Mr. Sidhartha Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner has
drawn attention of the Court to the charge sheet wherein except
for naming the Petitioner, nothing further has been stated
against him. Mr. Sahu further submits that the Petitioner has
been implicated only on the statement of the co-accused Ranjit
Swain, who was the Manager of the Hotel and the principal
offender. Since there is no other acceptable evidence against
the Petitioner, his implication is illegal.
8. Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer for bail
fairly submits that there is no other evidence apart from the
disclosure statement of co-accused Ranjit Swain wherein he
disclosed that the occurrence took place in the Hotel under the
supervision of its owner (petitioner).
9. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone
through the case record so also the case diary produced by the
State counsel. It is a fact that except for the statement of the co-
accused Ranjit Swain there seems to be no other evidence
suggesting complicity of the Petitioner in the alleged
occurrence. To such extent therefore, the Petitioner's
submission is acceptable, but then it is trite law that
anticipatory bail is to be granted only when there is a reason to
believe that the Petitioner would be taken to custody. This
// 4 //
Court observes that charge sheet was submitted on 15.12.2023
and an interim order of protection was passed by this Court on
21.6.2024. In between, there was no move by the Police to
arrest the Petitioner. This automatically negates the so-called
apprehension of the Petitioner of being taken to custody. It goes
without saying that an application for anticipatory bail would
be maintainable only if the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner would be
arrested. In other words, imminence of arrest is a sine qua non
for entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. In view of
the above facts, this Court does not find any such ground to
suggest that, but for the interim order of protection, the
Petitioner would have been taken to custody.
10. In the result, while not being inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, the application is disposed of
leaving it open to the Petitioner to surrender before the Court
below and move for bail, which shall be considered on its own
merit as also by applying the principle of parity since in the
meantime, the principal accused Ranjit Swain, on whose
statement the Petitioner has been implicated, has been released
on bail.
11. The ABLAPL is, accordingly, rejected.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Signature NotAKB
Verified Judge
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
