Mantua @ Bijaya Kumar vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 11716 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       CRLA No.453 of 2020


           Mantua @ Bijaya Kumar              ....    Appellant/
           Mallik                                   Petitioner

                                Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocate

                                  -versus-
           State of Odisha                    ....    Respondent
                                                    Opp. Party

                                Mr.A. Dash,
                                Addl. Government Advocate
                                CORAM:

                         JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                ORDER

Order No. 15.11.2021

I.A. No. 868 of 2020

03. 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 376(1)/363/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of twenty years // 2 //

and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one year more for the offence under section 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period six months more for the offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate punishment has been awarded under section 4 of the POCASO Act in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

-cum- Judge Special Court (P), Dhenkanal in C.T. (Spl.) POCSO Case No.10 of 2013/R.N.41 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was taken in judicial custody in connection with this case on 08.04.2013 and as per the order of this Court, he was released from judicial custody on 06.10.2016 and again since the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment and order of conviction by the learned trial Court on 12.02.2020, the appellant is in judicial custody and as such he has remained in custody for total period of five years and three months. Learned counsel for the appellant placed the evidence of the victim (P.W.5), from which

// 3 //

it appears that the victim had already attained the age of discretion and she moved with the petitioner from place to place. He further submitted that the victim appears to be a consenting party and she refused to go with her parents after she was rescued by the police. He further submits that there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in near future and balance of convenience is in his favour. He placed the evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) who examined the victim on the next date of the rescue and found no bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and there was no sign or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse and submitted that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of the victim (P.W.5).

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 appellant during pendency of the trial 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

// 4 //

of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court subject to conditions that the petitioner shall not try to come in contact with the victim or her family members and he shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date when the case would be posted for trial and he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

04. I.A. No. 869 of 2020 Heard.

There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant- petitioner 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