Orissa High Court
Nirakar Nahak vs State Of Odisha on 8 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No. 8 of 2019
Nirakar Nahak .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr.M. Padhi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. A.K. Beura,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
08.11.2021
I.A. No. 55 of 2019
06. The matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under sections 363/366-A/376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian
Penal Code read with section 6 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five
// 2 //
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of
four months for the offence under section 366-A of of
the Indian Penal Code. No further sentences were
passed under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand), in default,
to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under
section 6 of the POCSO Act and no separate
punishment has been awarded under section
376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code in view of
section 42 of the POCSO Act and all the substantive
sentence were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court
(POCSO), Dhenkanal in C.T. (Spl.) POCSO Case No.
10 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody in
connection with this case since 20.03.2017 and
therefore, out of substantive sentence of seven years
imposed by the learned trial Court, he has already
undergone four years and seven months of the
substantive sentence. He further submits that though
the occurrence stated to have taken place on
16.02.2017 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 18.03.2017
which is more than a month after the alleged
occurrence. It is further submitted that the victim
moved with the petitioner to different places and
stayed with him and she refused for her medical
examination. It is further submitted that there are
// 3 //
good chances of successes of the appeal and there is
no chance of early hearing of the appeal in near
future and balance of convenience is in his favour and
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State placed the
relevant portion of the impugned judgment and also
the evidence of the victim who has been examined as
P.W.1.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of
evidence adduced during trial, the substantive sentence
of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court,
the period already undergone by the petitioner in
judicial custody and absence of any chance of early
hearing of the appeal in near future, I am inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
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 solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
// 4 //
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant till
disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
p
Judge
