Orissa High Court
Nanda @ Narendra Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 8 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 248 of 2019
Nanda @ Narendra Sahu Appellant/
....
Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. D.K. Pani, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
08.04.2021
I.A. No.997 of 2019
14. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail.
3. Heard.
4. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 363/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code read with
section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five
thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I.
for six months for the offence under section 363 of the Indian
Penal Code and R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default of payment of
fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year for the offence under
// 2 //
section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and in view of
section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate sentence was
awarded under section 6 of the POCSO Act and the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge(P), Angul in
Special (POCSO) Case No.73 of 2015.
5. Perused the impugned judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was on bail during trial of the case and he has never
misutilised his liberty. He further submitted that the petitioner
has already remained in custody since the date of judgment i.e.
19.02.2019. Placing the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and the
doctor (P.W.13), it is contended that there are good chances of
success in the appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of
the petitioner and there is also no chance of early hearing of
appeal in the near future and therefore, the bail application of
the petitioner may be favourably considered.
7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that though it
appears from the evidence of the victim that there was love
affair between the petitioner and the victim and the victim was
also keeping physical relationship with the petitioner and she
appears to be a consenting party and the medical examination
report also do not indicate any kind of forcible sexual
intercourse with the victim but as per the date of birth
mentioned in the school admission register, the victim had not
completed eighteen years of age at the time of occurrence.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the
prosecution during trial, the sentence imposed by the learned
trial Court, the fact that the petitioner was on bail during trial
and there is no allegation of misutilization of his liberty while on
// 3 //
bail and further taking into account the period of detention in
judicial custody after the judgment was pronounced by the
learned trial Court and absence of any chance of early hearing
of the appeal in the near future, the prayer for bail is allowed.
9. Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail pending
disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. The I.A. is disposed of.
11. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are
continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft
copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print
out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed,
vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
