[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sukanta Mallick vs State Of Odisha on 4 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.374 of 2025
Sukanta Mallick ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Gagan Bihari Singh
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
04.12.2025
Order No.
04. I.A. No.875 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the State-Respondent. Perused the application as well as
the deposition of the witnesses which are part of the TCR.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the
convict-Appellant with a prayer for suspension of sentence and to
release the Appellant on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that
the Appellant has preferred the present appeal against judgment
dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Salipur in S.T. Case No.52 of 2021, which corresponds to G.R. Case
No.553 of 2021 and the same arises out of Salipur P.S. Case No.177
of 2021. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the convict-Appellant
has been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC read with Section 506, 450 of IPC and he has
been sentenced to undergo maximum imprisonment for a period of
eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- on different counts.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that
the Appellant is languishing in custody since 10.08.2021. Therefore,
he has already undergone imprisonment more than four years and
four months out of a total period of sentence of eight years as has
been inflicted upon him by the impugned judgment dated
09.08.2024. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant
contended that since the Appellant has already served 50% of the
sentence, the case of the Appellant be considered for his release on
bail.
6. On the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the Appellant
contended that except the Victim there is no other eye witness to the
occurrence. So far the medical evidence is concerned, learned
counsel for the Appellant, referring to the evidence of the M.O., who
has been examined as P.W.-12, stated before this Court that the
M.O. has categorically stated that on examination of the Victim on
10.08.2021, i.e. the day after the occurrence took place on
09.08.2021, no signs and symptoms of recent sexual intercourse
were found. The M.O. has also found that there is no sign of forcible
sexual intercourse. Learned counsel for the Appellant highlighted
the medical evidence as it is the consistent case of the prosecution
that the Victim was forcibly sexually assaulted by the convict-
Appellant while she was in her kitchen. Similarly, learned counsel
for the Appellant referred to the evidence of the Victim, who has
been examined as P.W.-2 and tried to highlight the inconsistency in
her evidence. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Appellant highlighted Para-12 of the cross-examination of the
Victim where she had categorically admitted that the accused had
committed rape on her on four to five occasions earlier in the year
2021. However, the same was never reported to the police. During
cross-examination suggestion has also been given with regard to a
family dispute between the brothers since the convict-Appellant
happens to be the brother of the husband of the Victim. On such
ground, learned counsel for the convict-Appellant submitted that
there are ample grounds on which the Appellant is likely to succeed
in the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the
prayer made for suspension of the sentence and for release of the
Appellant on bail. He further submitted that taking into
consideration the heinousness of the crime, the Appellant should not
be enlarged on bail. It was also pointed out that it is on record that
the Appellant has been convicted in a murder case. On such ground,
learned counsel for the State submitted that merely because the
Appellant has served 50% of the sentence imposed on him, the same
is not a good ground to release him on bail. Accordingly, it was
prayed that the bail application of the Appellant, being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the
evidence as well as materials on record, further taking into
consideration the deposition of the P.W. 2-Victim and the P.W. 12,
the medical officer, who had conducted the medical examination,
this Court is of the view that the Appellant has good grounds in the
appeal which is required to be considered at the time of hearing of
the appeal. Since the appeal cannot be taken up for hearing in the
near future, this Court is inclined to release the Appellant on bail
subject to the Appellant furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. The release shall also be subject to such other terms and
conditions as would be deemed just and proper by the learned trial
Court.
9. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Dec-2025 13:56:56
