IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.31 of 2024 Muguni Paika …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Palo, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite parties Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 10.07.2025 04. 1. Heard Mr. Palo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 31st July, 2023 as at Annexure-2 series of learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati in G.R. Case No.17 of 2023 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Palo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the time of chargesheet was filed, the prescribed period to complete the investigation had expired. The further submission is that the investigation was to be completed within two months in view of Section 173 (1-A) Cr.P.C. and since, the chargesheet was filed on 72nd days, the petitioner was entitled to default bail as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C but learned court below declined the same vide Annexure-2 series after having taken cognizance of the offences under Section 376 (AB) and 506 IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. The contention is that the petitioner was to be immediately released on bail after having received the chargesheet for the alleged offences beyond the prescribed period of 60 days as stipulated in Section 173 (1-A) Cr.P.C. but it has been followed by a rejection order dated 31st July, 2023 i.e. Annexure-2 series and therefore, the same is not legally tenable. 4. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that such a request for default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been received from the petitioner after filing of the chargesheet, hence, therefore, such a right stood extinguished and therefore, learned court below did not commit any serious error or illegality in passing the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2 series. 5. Admittedly, a case under Section 376(3) IPC was registered with the allied offences including Section 6 of POCSO Act and ultimately, it led to the filling of the chargesheet under Section 376(AB) IPC and in such view of the matter, it was for local police to conclude the investigation within 60 days in view of the statutory mandate as per Section 173 (1-A) Cr.P.C. Till such time, the chargesheet was filed, it was not within the knowledge of the learned court below or for that matter, the petitioner that a case under Section 376 (AB) IPC instead is made out. 6. The submission of Mr. Palo, learned counsel for the petitioner is that soon after receipt of the chargesheet, it was the bounden duty of learned court below to offer bail to the petitioner in view of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State reiterates that learned court below did not err in not considering such release of the petitioner in view of the filing the chargesheet even for an offence under Section 376 (AB) IPC. It is brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Swain, leaned AGA for the State that the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is visited with the sentence of life imprisonment and for the said purpose, the investigation is to be concluded not within 60 days and as rightly pointed out by learned court below shall have to be within 120 days and only upon expiry of the said period, default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. can be claimed. Having regard to submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and since, Mr. Palo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 376 (AB) IPC relates to rape of a woman under 12 years age and in view of Section 173 (1-A) Cr.P.C., the investigation was to be concluded within 60 days and it is to cover even an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, since such an aspect having not been taken judicial notice of by learned court below, the Court is of the view that it needs a fresh consideration with a proper hearing allowed to him as the same would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31st July, 2023 as at Annexure-2 series in G.R. Case No.17 of 2023 is hereby set aside with a direction to learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati to reconsider the plea of default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. in the light of the discussions made herein above and thereafter, to pass order at the earliest preferably within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Issue urgent copy of this order as per rules and in course of the day. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer