Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dilip Sinha vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 694 Ori

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 694 Ori
Judgement Date : 21 January, 2021

Orissa High Court
Dilip Sinha vs State Of Odisha on 21 January, 2021
                                 CRLA No.691 of 2016
                                                                                      1




                   1. Dilip Sinha
                   2. Uttam Sen                             ...        Appellants


                                                         -Versus-

                   State of Odisha                          ...      Respondent

                                     I.A. No.1250 of 2020
02.   21.01.2021           The    matter    is   taken    up      through     Video
                   Conferencing.
                           This application has been filed by appellant no.2
                   Uttam Sen for grant of bail.
                           Heard learned counsel for the appellant no.2 Uttam
                   Sen and learned counsel for the State.
                           The appellant no.2 along with appellant no.1 Dilip
                   Sinha    has    been    convicted   under      sections   376-D,
                   506(ii)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
                   undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty
                   years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) and
                   in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
                   of three months each for the offence under section 376-
                   D of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a
                   period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one
                   thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of two
                   months each for the offence under section 506(ii)/34 of
                   the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were
                   directed to run concurrently by the learned Sessions
                   Judge, Nuapada in S.T. Case No. 21 of 2015.
                           Learned counsel for the appellant no.2 submitted
                   that the victim is a married lady and it is the prosecution
                                                                2




case that during the evening hours of the date of
occurrence, i.e. on 27.07.2014, there was some quarrel
between the victim and her in-laws family members for
which the victim left the in-laws house and went to the
house of P.W.7 Bhagabati Sen and slept there and the
incident in question took place in the house of P.W.7, but
P.W.7 has not supported the prosecution case. The
victim herself admitted that on the next day of the
occurrence in the morning hours, she returned to her in-
laws house and when her parents-in-law asked her as to
where she had been yesterday night, she did not disclose
about the incident to them. It is further submitted that
the F.I.R. was lodged on 02.08.2014 and the victim was
medically examined on 11.08.2014, but the doctor, who
examined her was not examined during trial of the case
and   the   medical   document     was   proved    by   the
Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that there is
nothing in the medical report to corroborate the evidence
of forcible sexual intercourse on the victim. It is further
submitted that since the appellant no.2 is in judicial
custody for more than five years and five months, the
appeal is not ready for hearing and there is no likelihood
of the appeal being taken up for early hearing in the near
future and there are good chances of success in the
appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of the
appellant no.2 and the appellant no.1 who is similarly
situated has been released on bail as per order dated
10.12.2020 in I.A. No.1064 of 2020 and therefore, the
bail application of the appellant no.2 may be favourably
                                                                         3




      considered.
               Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
      for bail and placed the relevant portions of the judgment,
      the evidence of the victim and submitted that it was
      natural for P.W.7 not to support the prosecution case,
      since one of the appellants, namely, Uttam Sen is her
      son. He further pointed out that there is no illegality in
      the impugned judgment and the order of conviction. He
      fairly    submitted    that   the   accusations   against   the
      appellants are almost identical in nature.
               Considering the submissions made by the learned
      counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
      adduced by the prosecution during trial, the period of
      detention of the appellant no.2 in judicial custody and
      absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in
      near future and taking into account release of appellant
      no.1 on bail, I am inclined to release the appellant no.2
      Uttam Sen on bail.
               Let the appellant no.2 Uttam Sen be released on
      bail pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail
      bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two
      solvent local sureties each for the like amount to the
      satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
               The I.A. is disposed of.


                                             .............................
                                              S.K. Sahoo, J.

RKM

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter