Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Hota vs State Of Odisha …… Opp. Party on 10 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024
An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
--------------
Manoj Kumar Hota ...... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ...... Opp. Party
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. Sarita Moharana, A.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
10.01.2025
Savitri Ratho, J This is the second application of the petitioner filed
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Nayagarh P.S.
Case No.128 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.105/267 of
2023 in the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant
Sessions Judge, (Women’s Court), Nayagarh under Sections 376
(2) (n), 376 (2) (f), 323, 506 of IPC read with Section 66 (E), 67
and 67-A of the Information of Technology Act.
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 1 of 8
2. BLAPL No. 11211 of 2023 filed earlier by the petitioner
had been dismissed on 16.10.2023 by this Court, granting liberty to
him to move for bail afresh, after examination of the victim girl.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved the learned Court
below for bail and his prayer has been rejected by the learned
A.S.J.(W.C.), Nayagarh on 10.09.2024.
4. Perused the letter dated 04.12.2024 of the learned Senior
Civil Judge -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge (Women’s Court),
Nayagarh where it is stated that the charge has been framed in the
case under Section 376(2)(n)(f), 506 of IPC read with Sections
66(E), 67(A), 37 of the I.T. Act on 12.12.2023 and out of twenty
five charge sheet witnesses, ten witnesses have been examined and
the case is posted to 16.12.2024 for evidence of rest of the charge
sheet witnesses.
5. The prosecution allegations in brief are that the petitioner
is a Mathematics Teacher in Nayagarh Autonomous College and
the informant-victim was a student of +3 Science. She was staying
in a rented house and taking tuition from the petitioner at his house
in Nayagarh. In March, 2021 on a Sunday after her doubt class, the
petitioner forcibly raped her and clicked some nude photographs of
her. Utilising these photographs, the petitioner blackmailed the
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 2 of 8
victim and forced her to have a sexual relationship with him. After
completing her course, the victim returned to her village in
Nayagarh and avoided contact with the petitioner, but he
threatened her and sent her, her nude photographs through
Whatsapp etc. and threatened that if she did not agree to marry
him, he would circulate the photographs when the informant-victim
did not respond to his messages and switched off her mobile
phone, the petitioner gave the same threat to her parents. He
ultimately circulated these photographs for which the FIR was
lodged on 22.07.2023 by the victim.
6. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
23.07.2023. He has submitted that the evidence of P.W.7 in Court
contradicts her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that from a perusal of
her cross-examination, it would be apparent that the Petitioner and
victim were in a consensual relationship and she was now stating
falsehood as she has admitted in her cross-examination that there
was a WhatsApp group in which the petitioner used to post
messages regarding date and time of the tuition class for his
students but she has not produced any message sent by him for
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 3 of 8
attending class at the alleged date and time of occurrence. He
further submitted that the victim has alleged that the first
occurrence took place on March, 2021, but for more than two
years, she has attended the tuition classes and pursued her +3
course and secured first division in all her examinations which was
not possible if she was being raped and harassed by the accused.
He further submitted that during the Covid-19 pandemic period,
the victim had gone to the doctor. Had she been raped by the
accused, she should have informed the doctor which she admits she
has not done. He further submits that P.W.4 – father of the victim
has stated that he had handed over the photographs which have
allegedly been sent by the petitioner to the police to him and the
victim over Instagram and WhatsApp to the police, but she has
admitted in Court that the same are not available in the Court. He
also submits that as the petitioner is in custody for about one and
half and trial is still pending, he may be released on bail as his right
to speedy trial has been violated.
7. Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the case is in the
midst of trial and the I.O. is yet to be examined. The victim and her
parents have supported the prosecution case and during
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 4 of 8
investigation incriminatory obscene photographs, DVD plates and
messages have been seized. The circumstances of the seizure has
been mentioned in the seizure lists. The mobile phones to which
the photos were sent, have also been seized. She also submitted
that while the victim is aged about 20 years, the petitioner who was
her tuition lecturer is almost double her age and has misused his
position to compel the victim to have sexual relations with him and
when she tried to avoid him, he has circulated her intimate pictures.
His conduct being heinous, he does not deserve to be granted bail.
She finally submits that since the case is in the midst of trial, the
evidence of the victim should not be analysed as that may influence
the learned Trial Court.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of
the depositions of witnesses, who have been examined in the trial
and this includes the victim-P.W.7, her father-P.W. 4 and her
mother- P.W.5.
9. I have gone through the depositions of P.W.4, 5 and 7.
10. In a recent decision, X vs. State of Rajasthan : 2024
INSC 909, in an application filed for cancellation of bail granted to
an accused in a case under Section 376-D and Section 342 of IPC,
the Supreme Court has held as follows :
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 5 of 8
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and
the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the
Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should
be loath in entertaining the bail application of the
accused.
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two
things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge
is framed and just before the victim is to be
examined by the prosecution before the trial court,
or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral
evidence of the victim is complete by looking into
some discrepancies here or there in the deposition
and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a
correct practice that the Courts below should adopt.
Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to
reach to its final conclusion which may either result
in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the
accused. The moment the High Court exercises its
discretion in favour of the accused and orders
release of the accused on bail by looking into the
deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact
on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating
the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event
if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no
fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be
justified in ordering his release on bail on theBLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 6 of 8
ground that right of the accused to have a speedy
trial has been infringed.”
11. P.W.7 the victim has supported the prosecution case and
while her examination-in-chief consists of seven paragraphs, she
has stood her ground during protracted cross-examination where
she has been asked thirty four questions by the learned defence
counsel.
12. Minute threadbare examination of evidence of the victim
at this stage by this Court is not warranted as that is the duty of the
learned trial Court and may influence the learned trial Court.
13. Considering the nature of allegations against the
petitioner, his age and the age of the victim, his position at the time
of occurrence (he was a lecturer and the victim was a student going
to him for tuition), I do not consider this to be a fit case to release
the petitioner on bail.
14. As regards the submission that the petitioner should be
released on bail on the ground of infringement of his right to
speedy trial, I find that the petitioner is in custody since
23.07.2023. Considering the punishment prescribed for the
offences he is alleged to have committed and the period he has
remained in custody, I am not satisfied that there has been violation
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 7 of 8
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to direct for his
release on bail on that ground at this stage.
15. The BLAPL is dismissed.
16. As the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2023, the
learned trial Court is requested to make an endeavour to complete
the trial by the end of June, 2025.
17. It is open to the petitioner to move for bail afresh if the
trial is not completed by the end of June 2025.
18. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court
forthwith by the Registry.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 10th January, 2025.
S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 13-Jan-2025 16:12:34
BLAPL No. 9819 of 2024 Page 8 of 8