Case Title:
Satyananda Sahoo Vs State Of Odisha And Anr
Date of Order:
31.05.2022
Bench:
Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi
Parties:
Appellant -Satyananda Sahoo
Respondents - State of Odisha and Anr.
Subject
The order of a Special Court denying default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. to a person accused of uploading 'obscene photographs' of women by creating fake Facebook accounts in their names was upheld by a Single Judge Bench of the Orissa High Court, headed by Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi.
Important provisions
Sections 292/ 506/ 509/ 468/ 469 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 66-C/66-E/ 67/ 67-A of the I.T. Act and Section 167 of CrPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. and S.T. (PoA) Act.
Overview
- The Superintendent of Police sent a letter to Mahanga Police Station on November 19, 2019, enclosing a complaint from one Bharati Mallik, daughter of Amulya Mallik of village Raghunathanagar, alleging that one Satyananda Sahoo, son of Birabara Sahoo, had opened four Facebook accounts in her name one year ago.
- He had uploaded her indecent images, as well as those of her sisters, to the aforementioned Facebook profiles. He used to call her from multiple phone numbers and send her messages.
- He threatened to make her images viral and kill her if she did not answer the phone when he called.
- He repeatedly assaulted her in vulgar languages, referring to her caste as 'PANA.' He also threatened to burn her house down.
- Thus, a case was registered against him under Sections 292, 506, 509, 468, 469 of IPC read with Sections 66-C, 66-E, 67, 67-A of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- The appellant had previously petitioned the High Court for his release on bail. He withdrew his bail appeal and filed a petition before the Special Court under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the same day, requesting release on default bail in the absence of a charge-sheet being filed within 120 days of his confinement in custody.
- However, the Special Court dismissed the plea by ruling dated 20.01.2022, finding no merit in it. As a result, the appellant, who was aggrieved by the impugned ruling, filed an appeal with the High Court.
Issues Raised
Whether the appellant has right to be released on bail considering the evidence and gravity of accusations?
Arguments advanced by the Appellant
- Mr. A.K. Moharana, experienced counsel for the Appellant, argued that the appellant was unrelated to the current case. In this case, he had been wrongly accused.
- He went on to say that the appellant and the informant had been in love for a long time. The appellant and the informant's family members had a heated disagreement because the appellant refused to marry the informant. As a result, the informant had filed the false complaint in order to throw the appellant behind bars.
- The appellant's mobile phones were also taken by family members, who intentionally and cunningly used Facebook to spread nude images of the informant and her sister.
- The appellant's learned counsel argued that the court below failed to notice that the petition filed by the appellant before it was not a petition for ordinary bail release.
- It was a petition for default bail, in which the appellant's entitlement to bail had accrued because no charge-sheet had been submitted.
- He further claimed that an investigation had already been completed and a charge sheet had been filed in the meantime. As a result, if the appellant's bail is increased, there is no potential of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent
Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, vigorously opposed the appellant's request for bail, claiming that there was conclusive evidence against him. The appellant had also committed the aforementioned offences, according to the type and degree of the offence and the facts of the case. As a result, this Court should not consider releasing him on bond.
Judgement Analysis
- The Court noted that the statutory term of 120 days lapsed on 03.01.2022 when the appellant filed the petition under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., according to an order dated 20.01.2022 issued by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (SC/ST Act), Cuttack.
- However, the appellant failed to satisfy the court below on that day by filing an order from this Court stating that his appeal had been withdrawn. The court below decided that the appellant's petition did not protect the indefeasible right accrued to the UTP-appellant since he was unable to file the order of this Court. A charge sheet has already been filed in this case.
- The filing of a charge sheet does not produce a change in circumstances that would allow the court to hear the subsequent bail petition, which had previously been denied by the lower court.
- As a result, the court did not overturn the judgement dated 20.01.2022, as the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court under the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, Cuttack correctly dismissed the appellant's petition for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
- So, the criminal appeal was dismissed because it lacked merit.
Conclusion
The prayer for bail was devoid of merit and was thus dismissed, taking into account the nature and gravity of the accusation, the character of evidence presented against the appellant, the severe punishment imposed, and the fact that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was not guilty of the alleged offences or likely to commit any such offences, which was impossible to record in this case.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
