Nina Naik vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 1629 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             CRLA No.1208 of 2022

              Nina Naik                        ....     Appellant/
                                                      Petitioner


                                 Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Advocate

                                    -versus-

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

                                 Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel

                                  CORAM:
                             JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                   ORDER

Order No.                        21.02.2023

                              I.A. No.2332 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(1)/109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of // 2 //

three months for the offence under section 17 of the POCSO Act and no separate punishment is awarded under sections 376(1)/109 of the Indian Penal Code in view of section 42 of the said Act and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Presiding Officer Special Court under POCSO Act, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.T. Case No.118 of 2017.

Perused the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.12.2017 and as such the petitioner has already undergone half of the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court 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 the petitioner is a lady, keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1) Cr.P.C., the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and placed the statement of the eye witness, who was examined as P.W.3 and has not stated anything against the petitioner. He also placed the evidence of the victim (P.W.11) as well as the doctor (P.W.21).

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced during the trial, the substantive sentence imposed by the 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 and keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1) Cr.P.C., the prayer for bail is allowed.

// 3 //

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.2333 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