ASHOK KUMAR MALLIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

(2.) THIS application for bail has been filed by the petitioner, who is a constable of police. Accusation of commission of offence under Section 376(2)(g), IPC is made against the petitioner and other co accused persons.

(3.) MR . Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner has meticulously submitted that all the accused persons are innocent, there is no iota of material to implicate them with the alleged offence and the case is an out come of rivalry between the members of two different Employees' Union of the Police Department and the accused persons have been made a scapegoat by making wide publicity of the case in the Press. He submits that a bare perusal of the Case diary will go to show that the alleged occurrence though took place on the night of 6.6.2004, no FIR or information has been lodged by the victim. Rather, an FIR was drawn up by one Sri Prasann Kumar Dash, 11C of Cantonment Police Station, Cuttack on 22.6.2004 at 11.00 A.M. and in the FIR he states that by reading the news item regarding the occurrence in the daily Oriya News Paper 'Dharitri' dated 21.6.2004 regarding the incident, he suo motu drew up the FIR and started investigating into the case. Mr. Nayak further submits that the victim lady could not be traced till 23.6.2004 when she was ultimately found at Kantilo Patna and on the same day after bringing the victim to Cuttack, her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded. The said statement of the victim has been brought to the notice of the Court where it appears that the victim has stated that since the light was on, in the Guard Room she has clearly seen the accused persons and can identify them. But it appears that in the Tl parade conducted in the jail premises though all the accused persons were put to the said Tl parade, the victim was unable to identify any one of them. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though by repeated and wide publicity of the case in the Print media a strong public opinion is seen to have been created against the accused persons, but such fact will not in any way deter the Court from appreciating the case of the petitioner for grant of bail as per law. Added to this, he brings it to the notice of the Court that the prosecution itself having found that no case is made out against two accused persons, namely, Sk. Jainul Sajedin and Krishna Chandra Behera, no charge sheet has been submitted against them.