Orissa High Court Upholds Denial Of Default Bail To Man Accused Of Uploading 'Obscene Photos' Of Women On Facebook Accounts

"So far as the prayer of the appellant for release on bail is concerned, taking into account the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the appellant, the stringent punishment provided and that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offences alleged or not likely to commit any such offences, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit."

Factual Background:

The complaint alleged that one year ago, one Satyananda Sahoo had opened four 'Facebook accounts' in her name. In the said Facebook accounts, he had uploaded her obscene photographs and also that of her sisters. Further, it was alleged that he called her from various telephone numbers, used to send messages and intimidated her by saying that if she did not receive his phone call, he would make her photographs viral and kill her. Furthermore, it is alleged that he continuously abused her in obscene languages by naming her caste like 'Pana' (a scheduled caste community in Odisha). He also threatened to set her house on fire.

Accordingly, 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 earlier approached the High Court seeking release on bail. As it came to his knowledge that charge-sheet was supposed to be filed, he withdrew the bail appeal and on the same day, filed a petition before the Special Court under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking for release on default bail in absence of filing of charge-sheet within a period of 120 days from the date of his detention in custody.

However, the Special Court finding no merit in the said petition dismissed the same by order dated 20.01.2022. Thus, the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order, approached the High Court through this appeal.

Contentions of the Appellant:

Mr. Ajaya Kumar Moharana, counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is in no way connected to the present case and he has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the appellant and the informant were in love for quite a substantial period. As the appellant did not agree to marry the informant, there was an argument between the appellant and the family members of the informant. Hence, the informant had filed the said false complaint only to put the appellant behind the bar. The family members also snatched away the mobile phones of the appellant and knowingly and cunningly made the nude photographs of the informant and her sister viral through the Facebook accounts.

He contended that the court below failed to apprise the fact that the petition filed by the appellant before it was not a petition for release on regular bail, rather it was a petition for release on default bail, wherein right to release on bail was accrued on the appellant, as no charge-sheet had been filed. He further contended that in the meantime investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. Hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution witnesses, if the appellant be enlarged on bail and accordingly, pleaded for grant of bail.

Contentions of the Respondents:

Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State, opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant on the ground that there is clinching evidence against the appellant. It was also stated that considering the nature and gravity of the offence and facts of the case, the Court should not incline to release him on bail.

Court's Observations:

The Court noted that it appears from the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (SC/ST Act), Cuttack that the statutory period of 120 days expired on 03.01.2022 on which date the appellant had filed the petition under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. But on the said date, the appellant failed to satisfy the court below by filing the order of the High Court that his appeal had been withdrawn. Due to his inability of filing of the order of the High Court, the court below held that such petition filed by the appellant did not protect the indefeasible right accrued on the UTP-appellant.

Further, the Bench observed that charge-sheet has already been filed. Filing of charge-sheet does not create a change in circumstances to favourably consider the successive bail petition which was already rejected by the court below. Therefore, it held that the Presiding Officer, Special Court (SC/ST Act) rightly rejected the petition filed by the appellant under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking for his default bail.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Satyananda Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No.: CRLA No. 53 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 31^st May 2022

Coram: Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Ajaya Kumar Moharana, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 99

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment