Orissa High Court

Uttam Digal vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 17 December, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.7175 of 2024
Uttam Digal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Susanta Kumar Lenka

-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Chinmayee Digal Represented By Adv. -

B.K. Sahu, AGA

CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA
BEHERA

ORDER

17.12.2024
Order No.

03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The bail application under
Section 439
of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of K.
Nuagaon P.S. Case No.36 of 2024 corresponding to
C.T. Case No.29 of 2024 pending before the learned
Addl. District &Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court
under
POCSO Act
, Phulbani is taken up into
consideration.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of
learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Court under
POCSO Act
, Phulbani in C.T. Case No.29
of 2024 having been charged under
Sections 363
,
376(2)(n)
,
376(3)
IPC, 1860 read with
Section 4(2)

&
6(1)
of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the allegations of
commission of rape on the victim.

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 3.

Digitally Signed

Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK

Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of

Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 17-Dec-2024 16:53:01

4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the
State.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted for liberal consideration of bail
of the petitioner contending that, the petitioner is in jail
custody since 20.04.2024 and in the meantime, during
trial, the victim has already been examined as P.W.7,
but, the victim has not supported case of the prosecution
during trial, to which, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
objected contending that, as because, the trial is going
on, for which, he (petitioner) should not be allowed to
go on bail.

6. On perusal of copy of the deposition of the
witnesses submitted by the Trial Court, it appears that,
in fact the victim has not supported the case of the
prosecution during trial, for which, she (victim) has
turned hostile on being examined as P.W.7 during trial.

7. When the victim has not supported the case of
prosecution during trial and she (victim) has turned
hostile to the prosecution, then at this juncture, by
taking the aforesaid evidence of the victim during trial
into account, I find no justification to disallow the
prayer for bail of the petitioner.

8. Therefore, the bail application filed by the
petitioner is allowed.

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 3.

Digitally Signed

Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK

Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of

Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 17-Dec-2024 16:53:01

9. He (petitioner) is allowed to go on bail 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 Court in seisin over the matter
with conditions that :-

(i) he (petitioner) shall not involve with
similar nature of crime in future;

(ii) he shall appear before the Trial Court
personally on each date of adjournment of the
case without fail till the conclusion of trial;

(iii) he shall not terrorize, coerce, influence
or threat any witnesses of the prosecution
including the informant and her family members
either directly or indirectly in any manner
whatsoever at any stage of the proceeding of the
case, but in case of his failure to comply any of
the aforesaid conditions, the court in seisin over
the matter is authorized to cancel his bail order
out-rightly without seeking any permission for
the same from this Court.

10. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the
petitioner is disposed of finally.

11. Grant certified copy of this order to the petitioner
on proper application.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
Judge
Utkalika

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 3.

Digitally Signed

Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK

Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of

Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 17-Dec-2024 16:53:01