Orissa High Court
Suraj Marei @ Saroj Marei vs State Of Odisha on 7 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.83 of 2024
Suraj Marei @ Saroj Marei ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sunil Kumar Panda
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Smt. Sasmita Nayak,
ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.08.2025
Order No.
I.A. No.167 of 2024
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the
Petitioner-Appellant seeking his release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well
as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, at the outset,
contended that the Petitioner-Appellant has preferred the above
noted appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated
20th December, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Court (under POCSO Act), Sambalpur in
Spl. G.R. Case No.234/321 of 2017-2020. He further submitted
that initially the Petitioner-Appellant was charged for
commission of offence punishable under Section 377/506(1) of
the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However,
eventually after conclusion of trial, the Petitioner-Appellant was
found guilty and, accordingly, he has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 of
I.P.C. and, accordingly, he has been convicted for the offence
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 of I.P.C.
Accordingly, the trial court has sentenced the Petitioner-
Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence
under Section 6 of POCSO Act; and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 1 year for the offence under Section 377 of the
I.P.C. Such sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
5. On perusal of the appeal record, it appears that the appeal
was admitted vide order dated 07.02.2024 by a coordinate Bench
of this Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.08.2024, notice
was issued to the Informant pursuant to Sub-rule 13 and 15(viii)
of Rule-4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Rules, 2020. Order dated 11.09.2024 reveals that the notice was
duly served on the Informant as reported by learned Standing
Counsel to the coordinate Bench. Thereafter, the matter was
adjourned on 30.09.2024. Finally, the matter was listed today for
hearing of the bail application.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant further
submitted that the Petitioner-Appellant was initially arrested on
28.03.2017. Till the date of the judgment by the trial court, the
Convict-Appellant remain as UTP in jail custody. Thereafter,
upon his conviction he is still in jail custody. In view of the
aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant
submitted that the Appellant is in custody for more than 8 years
5 months. Since the total sentence which the Petitioner-
Appellant is required to serve is 10 years, unless the Petitioner-
Appellant is released on bail, the appeal preferred by the
Petitioner-Appellant may become infructuous.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, objected
to the release of the Petitioner-Appellant from jail. He further
submitted that taking into consideration the gravity and
seriousness of the allegation, the Petitioner-Appellant is not
entitled to be released on bail. He further contended that since
the Petitioner-Appellant has been convicted by the trial court,
there exists a prima facie case against the present Petitioner-
Appellant. As such, it was contended that the Petitioner-
Appellant is not entitled to release on bail.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both the
sides and on a careful examination of the materials on record,
further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner-Appellant has
been convicted for commission of offence under Section 377 of
I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on each count and
the sentence is to run currently and the maximum sentence the
Petitioner-Appellant is required to undergo is 10 years unless he
defaults paying fine amount, for which, extra one year R.I. is
awarded.
9. Keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner-Appellant has
already served 8 years 5 months and the possibility of early
hearing of the appeal is bleak, it is directed that the Petitioner-
Appellant be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Court (under POCSO Act), Sambalpur in
Spl. G.R. Case No.234/321 of 2017-2020 on such terms and
conditions as it may deem just and proper. It is made clear that
violation of any of the conditions, which are likely to be
imposed by the trial court, shall entail cancellation of bail.
10. The I.A. is disposed of.
11. This is an application for staying the realization of fine
amount.
12. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well
as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Respondent.
13. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner-Appellant, it is directed that realization of fine
amount under the impugned judgment in Spl. G.R. Case
No.234/321 of 2017-2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Court (under POCSO Act), Sambalpur shall
remain stayed till disposal of the appeal.
14. The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
