Orissa High Court
Soumya Ranjan Sahoo @ & vs State Of Odisha & on 11 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.596 of 2023
Soumya Ranjan Sahoo @ &. Appellant/
Papu Petitioner
Mr. Sougat Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha &. Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Manoranjan Mishra
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 11.09.2023
I.A. No.1307 of 2023
03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Learned counsel for the State on instruction
submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal
antecedent.
This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 458/323/324/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal
Code read with section 8 of the POCSO Act and
// 2 //
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. for a period of six
months for the offence under section 458 of the Indian
Penal Code, R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to
further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the
offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I.
for a period of three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to further
undergo R.I. for a period of three months for the offence
under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 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. for a period of one year for the offence under section
326 of the Indian Penal Code, 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. for a
period of one year for the offence under section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in
default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of six
months for the offence under section 8 of the POCSO Act
and all the substantive sentences were directed to run
consecutively by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
-cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack in Special
G.R. Case No.59 of 2016.
// 3 //
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was in custody for two years and one
month during trial and thereafter, he has been released
on bail and after the pronouncement of the judgment, he
has been taken into judicial custody. Learned counsel
further submitted that after the occurrence, the dying
declaration of the victim (P.W.6) was recorded as per
Ext.2 in which she mentioned that one person, who was
fat and wearing half pant and half shirt and looking like
Papu along with another person, who was looking like
Dhuna committed the offence. Learned counsel further
submitted that no test identification parade has been
conducted and the victim identified the petitioner for the
first time in Court. He further submitted that the F.I.R.
was lodged by the mother of the victim, who has been
examined as P.W.5, against unknown persons. P.W.6, the
victim stated that after the occurrence, she knocked the
door of the room where her parents were sleeping and
when her father and elder sister asked about the cause of
injuries, she stated that two persons had caused such
injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that since the
F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons, it shows that
there is no information given by the victim to the
informant or any of her family members that the two
persons, who have committed the crime, were looking
like the petitioner and Dhuna and therefore, there are
// 4 //
good chances of success in the appeal and balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner and thus, the
bail application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
the victim (P.W.6) and the doctor (P.W.9).
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for
the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced
during the trial and the fact that even if according to the
victim, the petitioner is a known person but the F.I.R.
was lodged against unknown persons and no test
identification parade has been conducted and the victim
identified the petitioner for the first time in Court and
there is no allegation of misutilization of his liberty while
on bail during trial 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
// 5 //
I.A. No.1306 of 2023
04. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2023 13:06:49
