Nimei Mandal vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3576 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRLA No.163 of 2023

              Nimei Mandal                      ....   Appellant/
                                                     Petitioner

                                 Mr.R.K. Pattanaik, Advocate

                                     -versus-

              State of Odisha                   ....   Respondent/
                                                     Opp. Party

                                 Mr.Rajesh Tripathy,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel

                                 CORAM:
                           JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                   ORDER

Order No.                        17.04.2023
                               I.A. No.335 of 2023

02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).

Learned counsel for the State submitted that notice on the informant is made sufficient on 26.03.2023.

None appears for the informant.

This is an application for bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.10.2019 and as such, out of twenty years of substantive sentence // 2 //

imposed on him by the learned trial Court, he has remained in custody for more than three years and six months. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim has not disclosed the actual date of occurrence and she has not disclosed about the occurrence immediately and there is delay in lodging the first information report and the medical evidence does not support the victim's evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has got good chances of success in the appeal and the balance of convenience is in his favour and there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per the evidence of the Headmaster of the school, where the victim (P.W.11) was prosecuting her studies, she was aged about eight years which would be evident from the school admission register. Moreover, the victim's evidence has not been shaken at all and merely because no sign and symptoms of rape were noticed by the doctor that cannot be a ground for disbelieve the prosecution evidence and therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nature and gravity of

// 3 //

the accusation against the petitioner, the evidence of the victim at the time of occurrence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail if after undergoing half of the substantive sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, the appeal is not taken up for hearing.

The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge I.A. No.336 of 2023

03. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.

Heard.

There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed on the appellant-petitioner by the learned Ad- hoc Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- First Track Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2023 in Special G.R. Case No.133 of 2019 pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

The I.A. is disposed of.

Issue certified copy as per rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

Sipun