Orissa High Court
Surya Kanta Nayak vs State Of Odisha on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.494 of 2018
Surya Kanta Nayak .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr.A.K. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Opp. Party
Mr.R. Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
29.11.2021
I.A. No. 1214 of 2018
10. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This is an application under section 389 Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand), in default, to undergo R.I.
for a period of one year more by the learned Additional
// 2 //
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Phulbani in G.R.
Case No.102 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was taken in judicial custody in connection
with this case on 25.08.2015 and he was released from
judicial custody on 16.11.2015 as per the order of the
learned trial Court and again since the date of
pronouncement of the impugned judgment and order of
conviction by the learned trial Court on 22.06.2018, the
appellant is in judicial custody and as such he has
remained in custody for total period of more than three
years and six months. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the evidence of the victim is contrary to
her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the
doctor's evidence (P.W.2) indicates that there was no
bodily injury suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and
no recent injuries was also seen in her private part and it
was found that the victim was habituated to sexual
intercourse. He further submitted that there are good
chances of success in the appeal and there is no chance of
early hearing of appeal in the near future and balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner and therefore,
the bail application of the petitioners may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
for bail and placed the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and
the doctor (P.W.2). It is further submitted that the victim
was minor as on the date of occurrence.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
// 3 //
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during trial, the fact that the
petitioner was on bail during trial and he has not
misutilised his liberty while on bail, the substantive
sentence 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
Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and
conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
p
// 4 //
