Orissa High Court
Dom @ Padman Golari vs State Of Odisha on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.568 of 2022
Dom @ Padman Golari .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. D. Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. party
Mr. Arupananda Das,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
21.09.2022
I.A. No.1082 of 2022
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code read with section
4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees five
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for further period
of six months for the offence under section 4 of the
POCSO Act and no separate sentence for the offence
under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code has been
imposed in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act by the
learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC), Jeypore in
// 2 //
T.R. Case No.21 of 2018.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a student and he was on bail during trial
and he has never misutilised his liberty while on bail.
It is further submitted that though the petitioner has
been convicted under section 376(1) of the Indian
Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act and was
sentenced only for the offence under section 4 of the
POCSO Act but the evidence of the victim indicates
that it was a case of attempt to commit the offence
under section 4 of the POCSO Act and the ingredients
of offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act are not
attracted 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 petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
victim (P.W.1) and the doctor (P.W.10).
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during trial, the age of the
petitioner at the time of occurrence and the fact that
the petitioner was on bail during trial and there is no
allegation of misutilization of his liberty while on bail
and absence of any chance of early hearing of the
// 3 //
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) each with two
local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.1081 of 2022
03. 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.
p ( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
