BHUBANESWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but the case has assumed importance due to regular and wide publicity made in the Press and Electronic media. Considering the above, though the Court is not required to go into the details of facts while considering an application for anticipatoiy bail which is a discretionary power of the Court under Section 438, Cr. P.C., in my view, it would be proper to state the case of the rival parties as it stands today.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. I. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Bhubaneswar Singh Deo along with his wife, namely, Smt. Puspalata Singh Deo brought Prasanta Nahak, a boy of about 8/9 years from his village Sodaka in the district of Ganjam. The said boy was an orphan and none was there to bring him up. The couple, therefore, with permission of the grand-father of Prasanta, namely, one Dandasi Nahak brought the said child to Khariar and were properly looking after him. Mr. Mohanty submits that the boy was very weak. The petitioner and his wife were taking all care of the said boy and as a matter of fact were getting him medically treated for various ailments, which were the resultant of malnutrition. He submits that as a matter of fact even the wife of the petitioner donated her blood for blood transfusion to the said boy Prasanta. However, the petitioner, who belongs to the royal family of Khariar has been made a scapegoat in this case due to political rivalry by members belonging to the opponent camp and though there is no prima facie case of any criminal offence committed by the petitioner or his wife, this false case has been initiated against them and the same has been widely publicized in the Press as well as Electronic media not only to create public opinion against the petitioner and furore of the local people of the village Sodaka, but also the entire populous of the State with ulterior motive. He submits that initially a Station Diary entry was made against the petitioner in the Khariar Police Station of Nuapada district alleging ill-treatment to the said boy Prasanta by the wife of the petitioner and the' petitioner. On enquiry being made by the police on the said Station Diary entry the police has ascertained that the boy Prasanta himself has stated to have not been tortured or assaulted mentally or physically by the petitioner or his wife. The boy has also stated that the injuries found on his person was not caused by Smt. Puspalata Singh Deo.

(3.) It appears from the case diary that pursuant to an office order dated 14-6-2004 the case was handed over to the Crime Branch and was entrusted to the Crime Branch Inspector to conduct investigation. The said Investigating Officer has recorded statements of a number of witnesses including the statement of the boy Prasanta and the statement of his grand-father Dandasi Nahak. The boy Prasanta has been medically examined and the report of the Medical Officer discloses that there are 11 external injuries on the body of Prasanta including one injury, which is non-healing ulcer measuring 7 cm x 6 cm on the right sacral region. The medical papers also show that due to the nature of the above injury, the boy has been referred to the Plastic Surgery Department. It appears also from the Case Diary that various X-Ray plates of the boy have been taken by the Medical Officer disclosing old fractures on the left clavicle and left scapula.