Orissa High Court
Somanath Rath vs State Of Odisha on 24 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1100 of 2023
Somanath Rath ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sidhartha Sankar
Ray(2)
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Smt. Sasmita Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.11.2025
Order No. I.A. No.2402 of 2023
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as
well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-
Respondent.
3. This interlocutory application has been filed by the
Petitioner-Appellant seeking his release on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, at the outset,
contended that being aggrieved by the judgment dated
13.09.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-Special Court under
POCSO Act, Berhampur in G.R. Case No.54 of 2017, which
corresponds to T.R. No.184 of 2022, thereby convicting the
Petitioner-Appellant for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(f)/376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and under
Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the Petitioner-Appellant has
preferred this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that the Petitioner-Appellant has very good grounds for the
appeal to succeed. In the aforesaid contest, he referred to the
medical evidence recorded during trial. Drawing attention of
this Court to the evidence of Medical Officer, who was
examined as P.W.13, learned counsel for the Petitioner-
Appellant submitted that the Medical Officer has not supported
the case of the prosecution inasmuch as it has been stated in the
deposition that no recent signs of sexual intercourse was
detected. Further, referring to the cross-examination of the
Medical Officer, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant
contended that although the victim was examined 13 days after
of occurrence, however, according to the Medical Officer, in a
case of a violent sexual assault, the mark is still visible for a
period of one month after the occurrence. He further contended
that although the Petitioner-Appellant has been convicted for
maximum of ten years, however, in the meantime he has already
served more than eight years in jail custody. On such ground,
learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant submitted that
unless the Petitioner-Appellant is released on bail, the appeal
would become infructuous as there is no possibility of the appeal
being heard in the near future.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Respondent, on the other hand, objected to release of the
Petitioner-Appellant on bail on the ground of gravity and
seriousness of the allegation as well as heiniousness of the
crime. She further contended that there exists a prima facie case
against the Petitioner-Appellant as he has already been found
guilty by the trial court. On such ground, learned Additional
Standing Counsel contended that the prayer for release of the
Petitioner on bail deserves no consideration by this Court.
Accordingly, learned Additional Standing Counsel prayed that
such application be dismissed as the same is devoid of merit.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials
on record, taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner
has been imposed with a sentence of the maximum period of ten
years and in the meantime, he has remained in custody for more
than eight years and in view of the fact that there is no
possibility of the appeal being heard in near future, this Court is
inclined to release the Petitioner-Appellant on bail.
8. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner-Appellant be
released on bail by the learned the learned ADJ-cum-Special
Court under POCSO Act, Berhampur or the court in seisin over
the matter in G.R. Case No.54 of 2017/T.R. No.184 of 2022 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with
two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter. The court in
seisin over the matter shall also impose any other conditions as
deemed fit 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.
9. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
