SANTOSH PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been arrayed as accused in Kodala P.S. Case No. 60 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 104 of 2002 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote for the offence under Sections 376/493, IPC. In that case he was arrested, produced in Court and finally released on bail by order dated 19.4.2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati in B.A. No. 247 of 2002. Opposite party No. 2, who is the informant of the G.R. Case No. 104 of 2002 filed an application under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. before this Court in CRLMC No. 17 of 2002 for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. But by order dated 3.2.2003 this Court disposed of the said application giving liberty to opposite party No. 2 to move the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. Opposite party No. 2 thereafter filed Bail Application No. 264 of 2003 before the learned Sessions Judge,Ganjam -Gajapati for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. After considering the said prayer, learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati by order dated 12.8.2003 cancelled the bail of the petitioner with observation that the petitioner misused the liberty granted to him. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing that order dated 12.8.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati.

(2.) MR . G.D. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never violated any of the conditions of the bail bond and never misused the liberty while on bail, but the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati without properly appreciating the situation and the reports of the I.O. passed the impugned order. He specifically submits that when the I.O. of the case had submitted a report that the accused -petitioner left for Surat in the State of Gujarat soon after his release on bail; there was no occasion for him to threaten the opposite party No. 2 at a remote village of Ganjam district situated thousands of Kms away from Surat. He also submits that the subsequent wireless message of the I.O. clearly indicated that the petitioner was appearing before him on the 1st of every month, and hence there was no violation of the terms of the bail bond. According to Mr. Tripathy, the impugned order is contrary to the reports of the I.O. and the materials on record and for that reason, the same should be quashed.

(3.) WHEN the prayer for cancellation of bail of the petitioner came up for consideration, learned Sessions Judge,Ganjam -Gajapati called for a report from the I.O. on the allegation of opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner threatened her after his release on bail and the I. O. reported that the petitioner left for Surat in Gujrat a few days after his release on bail and so he could not have threatened the opposite party No. 2. Then another report was called for from the I.O. about the allegation of violation of the terms of the bail bond and by wireless message dated 6.8.2003 the I.O. reported that the accused -petitioner appeared before him on 1.5.2002, 1.7.2002, 1.8.2002 and 1.9.2002 as per the conditions laid down in the bail order and since charge -sheet was submitted on 11.2002, there was no further occasion for the petitioner to appear before him. Since both the reports submitted by the I.O. were contradictory to each other, learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati discarded the reports and basing on the station diary entries made on the allegation of opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner, accepted the allegation that the petitioner threatened opposite party No. 2 asking her to withdraw the case and because such conduct amounts to tampering of the prosecution witnesses and misuse of the liberty granted to him, he cancelled the bail of the petitioner.