Orissa High Court
Lipun Bagh vs State Of Odisha on 3 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.271 of 2022
Lipun Bagh .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
03.05.2023
I.A. No.1363 of 2022
04. 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 Mr. Asutosh Tripathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner appears through Virtual High Court at Angul
district and Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State of Odisha.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and 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.10,000/-
(rupees ten thousand), in default, to further undergo R.I.
// 2 //
for a period of six months for the offence under section
376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and no separate
punishment is awarded under section 6 of the POCSO Act
in view of section 42 of the said Act by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Angul in
Special (POCSO) No.91 of 2016.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
25.08.2016 and thus, out of ten years of substantive
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, he has
already undergone six years and eight months and there is
no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near future and
balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the doctor, who examined the
victim has not noticed any bodily injury suggestive of
forcible sexual intercourse or any sign and symptoms of
recent sexual intercourse and no physical clue was
available from her clothing. Learned counsel further
submitted that in view of the nature of evidence available,
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 (P.W.1) and
submitted that the victim was a minor girl at the time of
occurrence and she has supported the prosecution case.
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.555 of 2022
05. 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
RABINDR Digitally signed
by RABINDRA
A KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2023.05.05
MISHRA 13:25:30 +05'30'
