Orissa High Court
Rajendra Behera vs State Of Odisha on 8 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1149 of 2024
Rajendra Behera ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. S.S. Ray (2)
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. S.K. Brahma, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.08.2025
Order No.
I.A. No.2839 of 2024
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. This present 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
27th September, 2024 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional
District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act, Berhampur
in Sessions Trial No.118/2019, which arises out of G.R. Case
No.198/2019 of J.M.F.C., Patrapur, corresponding to Jarada P.S.
Case No.127 dated 27.07.2019. Vide the impugned judgment
dated 27.09.2024 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner-Appellant has
been found guilty of commission of offences punishable under
Sections 450/376(2)(l) of I.P.C. Accordingly, learned Ad hoc
Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act,
Berhampur has convicted the Petitioner-Appellant thereunder and
the Petitioner-Appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence
punishable under Section 450 of I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(l) of I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant further
contended that the Appellant is in custody since the date of his
arrest on 28.07.2019. As such, learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Appellant contended that the Petitioner-Appellant is in custody for
more than six years. Since as per the order of conviction the
maximum punishment that has been awarded to the Petitioner is
that of ten years rigorous imprisonment, and in the meantime the
Petitioner-Appellant has already undergone rigorous imprisonment
for more than six years, learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Appellant contended that the Petitioner-Appellant be released on
bail at this juncture, otherwise the appeal, which is not likely to be
taken up in near future, may be become infructuous. He further
submitted that the victim is a deaf and dumb girl and is having
subnormal mental condition. He further alleged that the mother of
the victim lodged the F.I.R. alleging commission of sexual assault
by the Petitioner-Appellant on the victim girl. Further, referring to
the materials on record, learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence
and that the conviction is based on the evidence of the mother of
the victim who was examined as P.W.5 in the trial. He also
contended that the victim, having a mental condition, was unable
to depose before the court, which is evident from the deposition of
P.W.7 and the same is a part of the record.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Appellant further submitted that even the medical evidence does
not support the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid context,
learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, referring to the
medical evidence, submitted that the same is very clear and that it
does not conclusively indicate that the Petitioner-Appellant has
committed any sexual act on the victim. In addition to the above
discrepancies, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant also
demonstrated several other inconsistencies and discrepancies in
the prosecution evidence. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioner-Appellant contended that the Petitioner-Appellant has a
very good chance of acquittal in the event the appeal is heard.
Therefore, further continuance of the Petitioner-Appellant in
judicial custody would cause grave prejudice to the Petitioner-
Appellant. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the
Petitioner-Appellant contended that the sentenced be suspended
and the Petitioner-Appellant be released on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the State-Respondent, on the other
hand, objected to the prayer for release of the Petitioner-Appellant
on bail. While objecting to the bail application, learned counsel for
the State-Respondent, at the outset, referred to the gravity and
seriousness of the crime. He also led emphasis on the fact that the
victim is a deaf and dumb girl and her mental condition is not
stable. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State
referred to the evidence of the mother of the victim, i.e. P.W.5 as
well as some other witnesses and contended that the trial court has
rightly convicted the Petitioner-Appellant for the alleged offences.
He further submitted that on the basis of the evidence and
materials available on record, learned trial court has not committed
any illegality in convicting the Petitioner-Appellant. As such,
there exits a prima facie case against the Petitioner-Appellant.
Hence, it was prayed that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner-
Appellant be rejected.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both the
sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of the judgment
dated 27.09.2024 under Annexure-1, this Court observes that the
Petitioner-Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 450/376(2)(l) of I.P.C. and he has been
sentenced to undergo a maximum period of rigorous imprisonment
of ten years and fine, as has been indicated in the judgment dated
27.09.2024. No doubt the offence alleged is heinous in nature.
However, while conducting the trial and convicting the Petitioner-
Appellant, the trial court is always duty bound to ensure that there
is evidence on record which points towards the fact that the
Petitioner-Appellant is found guilty of alleged offences beyond all
reasonable doubt. Since the victim has failed to depose due to her
condition and that the medial evidence does not support the
prosecution case, this Court is of the view that such aspects of the
matter are to be examined at the time of hearing of the appeal and
that the Petitioner-Appellant has a good prima facie ground in the
appeal.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that
the Petitioner-Appellant be released on bail by the learned Ad hoc
Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC) under POCSO Act,
Berhampur or the Court in seisin over the matter in Sessions Trial
No.118/2019 on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and
proper. While imposing conditions, the trial court shall ensure that
the Petitioner-Appellant does not abscond and shall surrender
before the court below whenever such direction is given by the
Court. It is made clear that violation of any of the conditions,
which are likely to be imposed by the trial court, shall entail an
automatic cancellation of the bail.
10. The I.A. is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
