Orissa High Court
Sk. Nasrat Ali vs State Of Odisha on 26 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.499 of 2016
Sk. Nasrat Ali .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Ms. T. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. A.K. Beura,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
26.10.2021
I.A. No.255 of 2020
10. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).
Ms. T. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that she does not want to press
the interim application.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of as not
pressed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.348 of 2021
11. This is an application for grant of bail filed by
the petitioner Sk. Nasarat Ali.
// 2 //
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of twenty years and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) and in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions
Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No.42 of 2014.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Ms. T. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is in judicial custody since 14.09.2013 and there is no
chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near
future. She placed the evidence of P.W.1, the victim
and P.W.5, the brother-in-law of the victim. It is
submitted that the occurrence in question took place
on 03.09.2013 and the first information report was
lodged on 13.09.2013 and the victim has not named
the petitioner in the first information report and the
victim stated that after she returned home, she did
not disclose about the occurrence before anybody in
the same night and on the next day morning, she
went to Bhubaneswar to her husband and stayed
there for nine to ten days but during that period also,
she did not disclose about the incident to her
// 3 //
husband. She told about the incident over phone
before her brother-in-law (P.W.5). Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that the P.W.5
has stated that the victim told her that accused
Santosh and Susanta took her in a bike to Sulia
jungle, raped her and also took photographs by
camera. It is further submitted that since the victim
at the first instance has not disclosed before P.W.5
that apart from those two named accused, any other
person participated in the commission of gang rape
on her and one of the co-accused, namely, Sk.
Menon Hussain, who is the appellant in JCRLA No.25
of 2017, has already been released on bail in I.A.
No.66 of 2020 vide order dated 25.03.2021,
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may
be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has
been identified in the test identification parade.
Considering the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature
of evidence available on record against the petitioner,
the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial
custody, since the victim at the first instance has not
disclosed before her brother-in-law (P.W.5) that any
other persons apart from co-accused Santosh and
Susanta committed rape on her or even present at
the scene of occurrence and the fact that similarly
// 4 //
situated co-accused, namely, Sk. Menon Hussain has
already been released on bail by this Court and there
is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the
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.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as
per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
Jagabandhu
