Arun Behera vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 1552 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            CRLA No.664 of 2022

              Arun Behera                         ....     Appellant/
                                                          Petitioner

                                    Mr. B.K. Behera-1, 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.1274 of 2022

05. 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 section 450/376(2)(i) and section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand), in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act and R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to further // 2 //

undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence was awarded under section 376(2)(i) of the of the Indian Penal Code in view of the provision under section 42 of the POCSO Act and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Berhampur in G.R. Case No.166 of 2017/T.R. No.84 of 2022.

Perused the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on 02.12.2017 and there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the medical evidence adduced by P.W.14 did not indicate anything regarding commission of sexual intercourse on the victim. He further submitted that in the meantime, the victim has already got married and in support of such contention, he has filed some certificates along with a date chart, which are taken on record and further submitted that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the date of birth of the victim was 10.12.2003 and the occurrence in question took place on 12.11.2017 when the victim was only fourteen years of age and the victim has supported the prosecution case and in view of the delayed examination of the victim, there was no evidence of forcible intercourse found by the doctor and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner should be rejected.

// 3 //

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, in view of the age of the victim and the nature and gravity of the accusation against the petitioner, at this stage, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail, it is observed that the petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail if after serving half of the substantive sentence, the appeal is not taken up for hearing.

Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

I.A. No.1273 of 2022

06. 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.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge RKM