Orissa High Court
Abhimanyu Padhihari vs ) State Of Odisha on 29 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.362 of 2025
Abhimanyu Padhihari ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. Bini Mishra
-versus-
1) State of Odisha ..... Respondents
2) Informant Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi,
ASC for R-1.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
29.07.2025
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.
3. Appeal is admitted.
4. Since soft copy of the TCR has already received in the
meantime, office is directed to expedite the preparation of paper
book.
5. This interlocutory application has been filed by the
Petitioner-Appellant seeking his release on bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well as
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Respondent No.1.
7. It is stated by the Learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Appellant that the Petitioner-Appellant has preferred the above
noted appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated
13.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.98
of 2020. She further submitted that initially the Petitioner-
Appellant was charged for commission of offence punishable
under Section 354/354-A/354-B/376(AB)/294/506/34 of I.P.C.
read with Sections 6/10/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. However
eventually after conclusion of trial, the Petitioner-Appellant was
found guilty and, accordingly, he has been convicted for the
offences under Sections 354/354-A/354-B/506/34 of I.P.C. read
with Sections 6/10/12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the
learned trial court has sentenced the Petitioner-Appellant to
undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and
in default of payment of the fine, to suffer R.I. for one month for
the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. He has
also been convicted to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to suffer
R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of
I.P.C. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant further contended that
the Petitioner-Appellant is languishing in jail custody since
19.10.2020 although he was released on interim bail for a period of
three months. In the aforesaid factual background, learned for the
Petitioner-Appellant contended that since the Petitioner-Appellant
has undergone more than 50% of period of imprisonment that he
has been punished and there is no possibility of the appeal being
heard in the near future, the Petitioner-Appellant be released on
bail on any stringent terms and conditions.
8. Although notice was issued to the Opposite Party-
Respondent No.2(Informant), however despite valid service of
notice, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party-
Respondent No.2 (Informant).
9. Learned counsel for the State-Respondent No.1, on the other
hand, submitted that the Petitioner-Appellant has already been
convicted for commission of offences under Sections 6/10/12 of
the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Petitioner-Appellant should not be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State-
Respondent No.1 prayed for rejection of the prayer for bail of the
Petitioner-Appellant.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the background
facts, further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner-Appellant
has already undergone more than 4 ½ years in custody in the
meantime out of an imprisonment of seven years and there is less
possibility of appeal being heard in the near future, it is directed
that the Petitioner-Appellant be released on bail by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act,
Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.98 of 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 is likely to be imposed by
the trial court, shall entail cancellation of bail.
11. The I.A. is disposed of.
12. This is an application for staying the realization of fine.
13. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well as
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Respondent.
14. 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.98 of
2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack shall remain stayed till disposal
of the appeal.
15. The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
