ANIL KUMAR SAMARTHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is alleged to have involved himself in an offence under S. 376(2)(g) read with S. 457 of the Indian Penal Code has approached this Court in this application under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.

(2.) F.I.R. has been lodged by the victim lady on 18-7-2001, stating that she had married one Saheb Badtia in the year 1996 and a son was born out of the marriage. Thereafter she left her husband and stayed in her parents' house and was working in Magnum factory as a labourer. She has also stated in the F.I.R. that since June she is staying in a rented house in Lingaraj Nagar and after closure of the factory she was unemployed and working as a maid-servant in the house of accused-Bulu Kar. At about 10.30 p.m. on 31-7-2001 one Deba Choudhary forcibly entered into her room and committed rape on her. Thereafter, Bulu Kar in whose house she was serving as maid-servant and two others in the age group of 25 to 26 years committed rape one after other and left the place.

(3.) Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not been named in the F.I.R. as one of the four persons who committed rape on the victim lady and the petitioner had been shown as to the informant before identification. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on three decisions reported in 1985 (2) OLR 68 (Ramachandra Giri v. State); (1996) 2 OCR (SC) 164 (Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana) and (1996) 10 OCR 234 (Daun alias Biswajit Patnaik v. State). It is further submitted by Shri Mohapatra that in view of the law laid down in all these decisions, identification by the informant cannot be believed and, therefore, it can safely be stated that there is no material against the petitioner so as to prove his complicity in the offence.