Orissa High Court
Osipilli@Vasupalli Appala vs ) State Of Odisha on 9 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.865 of 2025
Osipilli@vasupalli Appala ..... Appellant
Raju@appala Raju
Represented By Adv.
- Sanjit Mishra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Respondents
2) Informant Represented By Adv. -Mr.
U.R.Jena, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2025
I.A. No.2008 of 2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel for the State. The Informant-victim who is present in person
through virtual mode along with her lawyer.
3. This I.A. has been filed with a prayer to release the Appellant
for bail.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that
the Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated
25.06.2025 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-
Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act, Puri in T.R. No.9/68 of
2025/24 arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.70 of 2024 corresponding
to Puri Sea Beach P.S. Case No.171 of 2024 for alleged commission
of offence punishable under Sections 126(2)/ 64(2)(k)/ 65(2) of
B.N.S. read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.
5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court the informant as
well the victim along with her lawyer are present through virtual
mode. The informant who happens to be the mother of the victim
stated before this Court that she does not want to oppose the bail
application of the present Appellant. The victim who appeared
through virtual mode is a mentally retarded, deaf and dumb, as has
been stated in the impugned judgment. It was argued on behalf of the
informant that she has no objection in the event the appellant is
released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant on the other hand contended
that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
further contended that the deposition of the victim has not been
recorded, however the statement of the victim recorded under Section
183 B.N.S.S. has been treated as her examination-in-chief under
Section 183(6) of the B.N.S.S. He further emphatically argued that
on the case of the prosecution is not supported by medical evidence
as the medial officer who conducted the medical examination of the
victim has clearly opined that no signs or symptoms of recent sexual
intercourse was found and no injuries were present on the body of the
victim. On such ground, learned counsel for the Appellant argued
that the Appellant be enlarged on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
release the Appellant on bail on the ground of gravity and
seriousness. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State,
referring to the cross-examination of the victim-P.W.-6, stated before
this Court that the victim has identified the accused by specific
gesture, conveying that she knows him. She has also expressed by
gesture which was interpreted by the sign interpreter that the accused
dragged her to the temple area and committed the crime and that no
one was present at the temple at the relevant point of time. In such
view of the matter, learned counsel for the State objected to release
the Appellant on bail. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the State objected to the release of the convict-Appellant on bail.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, as well as the informant who is present through virtual mode
along with her counsel, further on a careful examination of the
materials on record, on a close scrutiny of the trial court record, this
Court observes that the learned trial court has convicted the
Appellant-Petitioner on the basis of the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., which was subsequently
treated as her examination-in-chief. It is a fact that the medical
evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. Taking into
consideration the fact that the victim is a mentally retarded person
that she is deaf and dumb, this Court is of the view that even though
the alleged crime is heinous in nature, however such evidence would
not be sufficient to convict the accused unless there are other
corroborative materials. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
Appellant has a good prima facie case in the present appeal.
Moreover, the appeal would not likely to be taken up in the near
future. Additionally, the informant, who happens to be mother of the
victim, has no any objection in the event the Appellant is released on
bail. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to release the
Appellant on bail. Accordingly, It is directed that the Appellant be
released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as deemed just
and proper by the court below. Accordingly, this Court directs that
the Appellant be released on bail subject to the Appellant furnishing
a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two local solvent sureties. However,
such release shall be subject to such terms and conditions as deemed
just and proper by the learned trial court.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, I.A. stands
disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
