Gobinda Kumbhar @ vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 1551 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            CRLA No.1111 of 2022

              Gobinda Kumbhar @                   ....     Appellant/
              Gobinda Digal                               Petitioner

                                    Mr. S. Panigrahi, Advocate

                                       -versus-

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

                                    Mr. Arupananda Das,
                                    Addl. Government Advocate

                                     CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                     ORDER

Order No. 20.02.2023

I.A. No.2127 of 2022

02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under sections 376(2)(i)/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand), in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of two months for the offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act and no separate // 2 //

punishment is awarded under sections 376(2)(i)/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code in view of section 42 of the said Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Presiding Officer, Children's Court, Boudh in Special Case PCR No.03 of 2017 (POCSO Act).

Perused the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a juvenile when he was taken into custody in connection with this case on 17.01.2017 and in the meantime, out of ten years of substantive sentence, he has remained in custody for more than six years 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 opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of the victim, who was examined as P.W.14 and stated that the petitioner took him from Sonepur to Bhubaneswar in a bus and she stayed with the petitioner for about eight days where the occurrence in question took place. The doctor's evidence indicates that there was no injury on the body of the victim which would suggest forceful sexual intercourse and the hymen was ruptured and permits two fingers penetration.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced during the trial, the substantive sentence imposed by the

// 3 //

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 the near future, the prayer for bail is allowed.

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 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.2128 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 as per rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

RKM