Orissa High Court
Hrushikesh Mohanta vs State Of Odisha on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 814 of 2019
Hrushikesh Mohanta .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr.B.S. Dasparida,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opposite Party
Mr. Rajesh Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
01.11.2021
I.A. No. 1764 of 2019
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).
This is an application for bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six
// 2 //
months for the offence under section 376(2)(l) of
the Indian Penal Code by the learned Special Judge,
Champua in Special Case No. 02 of 2016.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial
and he has never misutilized his liberty. He further
submitted that though the petitioner has been
found guilty for the offence under section 376(2)(l)
of the Indian Penal Code, which requires the
prosecution to prove that rape was committed on a
women suffering from mental or physical disability,
but not a single document relating to such disability
has been proved in accordance with law during trial
and the Investigating Officer seized certain
documents relating to the disability of the victim as
per the seizure list Ext.3, but those documents were
neither produced in Court nor proved during trial. It
is further submitted that nothing is available in the
evidence of the victim to show that she was having
speaking or hearing problem while deposing in
Court even though the certificate which was seized
vide seizure list Ext.3 indicates that the victim was
having speaking as well as hearing disability. It is
further contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the victim has stated that it was a
rainy season and the ground was wet and the
// 3 //
appellant dragged her forcibly by holding her right
hand and she tried her best to escape from the
petitioner and her bangles were broken and the
petitioner led her on the ground to commit the
offence, but the medical evidence indicates that
there is no sign or symptoms of recent sexual
intercourse and no injury was found on her person
and there are good chances of success in the appeal
and there is no chance of early hearing of the
appeal in the near future and balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner and
therefore, the bail application may be favourably
considered.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the
other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and placed
the evidence of the victim (P.W.9) and the doctor
(P.W.10).
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the
nature of evidence adduced during trial, period of
detention of the petitioner in judicial custody after
the pronouncement of the impugned judgment and
the fact that the petitioner was on bail during trial
and there is no material regarding misutilization of
the liberty while on bail and absence of any chance
of early hearing of the appeal in near future, I am
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
// 4 //
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.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
PKSahoo
