Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Not Named In FIR - Doctor Got Anticipatory Bail In POSCO and SCST Act: Orissa High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Orissa has granted anticipatory bail to Dr. Satyendra Prakash Verma, a petitioner in a case involving serious charges under the POCSO Act, IPC, and the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Sashikanta Mishra, presiding over the case, remarked that the absence of direct allegations against the petitioner in the FIR played a crucial role in the decision.

The case, registered as ABLAPL No. 50 of 2024, came under the spotlight after the petitioner, a doctor, was implicated during the investigation for his role in facilitating the delivery of a child. The child was born to a minor victim who alleged exploitation by the principal accused, Sanjeet Mahato.

Justice Mishra, in his judgment, highlighted, “There is not a whisper of allegation against the petitioner by the informant-victim much less of commission of the offence under Section 3 of SC & ST (PA) Act.” This observation was pivotal in determining the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The court also addressed the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application under the SC & ST (PA) Act. Referring to various Supreme Court and High Court precedents, Justice Mishra clarified that the bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the SC & ST (PA) Act does not apply if a prima facie case under the Act is not made out.

In concluding the judgment, the court directed, “In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released by the arresting officer on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit and proper to impose.”

This ruling brings to light the nuanced application of legal provisions concerning anticipatory bail, especially in sensitive cases involving minors and scheduled castes and tribes. The decision is seen as a significant precedent in balancing the rights of the accused with the severity of the allegations, especially in cases where the accused’s direct involvement is not clearly established.                                                  

Date of Decision: 25 January 2024

Dr. Satyendra Prakash Verma VS State of Odisha & another

 

Similar News