Orissa High Court
Pratap Patel vs State Of Odisha on 3 January, 2024
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.561 of 2023
Pratap Patel .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mund, Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Rajesh Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
03.01.2024
Order No.
I.A. No.1236 of 2023
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/ physical mode).
Mr. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
submitted that he has received the letter of the
Inspector in-charge of Kuchinda police station, which
indicates that during the period of interim bail of the
appellant, there is no allegation of misutilization of
liberty by him. The written instruction is taken on
record.
This is an application under section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard Mr. S.K. Mund, learned Senior Advocate
for the appellant/petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Tripathy,
// 2 //
learned counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
for the offence punishable under section 376 (D) of
the I.P.C. and section 6 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of thirty years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh),
in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of
three years for the offence under section 376-D of
the I.P.C. and in view of section 42 of the POCSO
Act, no separate sentence has been awarded for the
offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court
(under POCSO Act), Sambalpur vide judgment and
order dated 31.03.2023 passed in S.T.
No.149/136/102 of 2015-2017-2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the occurrence in question is stated
to have been taken place on 02.07.2015 and the first
information report was lodged on 03.07.2015 and on
the very day, the victim was medically examined by
the doctor (P.W.22). Learned counsel further
submitted that the victim being examined as P.W.1
stated that the accused persons dragged her to a
jungle where she was forcibly undressed and
thereafter rape was committed on her one after
another by the accused persons and not only in the
cross-examination she has stated that she has
sustained injuries on her lips and on her hands but
// 3 //
also she has also bled little bit from the mouth as her
neck was pressed but the doctor (P.W.22) has stated
that there was no bodily injury, there was no injury
on the genital, the hymen was intact and her vagina
was admitted one finger, there was no recent sign or
symptoms of recent sexual intercourse and in the
cross-examination, the doctor (P.W.22) has
specifically stated that she did not find any mark of
violence on the lips, chest, neck, abdomen, arms,
thighs etc. of the victim. Learned counsel further
submitted that in view of the statement of the victim
and the doctor, the petitioner has got good chances
of success in the appeal, the balance of convenience
is in his favour and the fact that the petitioner has
remained in judicial custody for more than eight
years and five months and it is a appeal of the year
2023 and since there is no chance of early hearing of
the appeal in the near future, the bail application
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.1) and the doctor
(P.W.22) and submitted that the victim was minor as
on the date of occurrence.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature
of evidence adduced during trial, substantive
// 4 //
sentence imposed on the petitioner, 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, I am inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
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 on such other
conditions as the learned trial Court may deem just
and proper.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
08. 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.
Issue certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
sipun
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA. CUTTACK
Date: 04-Jan-2024 10:38:19
