Niranjan Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 9649 Ori

Orissa High Court

Niranjan Nayak vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 31 October, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         CRLREV No.122 of 2025
            Niranjan Nayak                 ....           Petitioner
                                           Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate


                                       -Versus-


            State of Odisha                        ....       Opposite Party
                                                        Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
                     CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                                      ORDER

31.10.2025 Order No.

07. 1. The notice could not be served on the informant as AD of notice returned back with a postal endorsement 'no such person in this address, hence, returned to sender'. An extra copy of the writ petition with annexures was earlier served on the State to ensure service of such notice with the assistance of the local PS. Today, Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State submits that he has no instructions regarding service of notice on the informant.

2. State is directed to ensure service of notice on the informant as has been directed in view of the Court's order dated 19th September, 2025.

3. List on 28th November, 2025 for hearing and orders.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

IA Nos.177 and 178 of 2025

1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant IAs are filed seeking release of the petitioner on bail and staying realization of the fine amount directed by the learned courts below.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was on bail during trial and at presently in custody, hence, should be released with conditions.

4. The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 376 IPC.

5. The impugned judgment at Annexure-1 of the court of 1st instance reveals that the petitioner committed the alleged mischief and developed physically relationship with the victim with a promise of marriage.

6. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner and that he was on bail during trial and even when the appeal was pending before the learned court below and in custody since 11th February, 2025, awaiting appearance of the informant with a response of the victim and recording the objection of Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State, the Court is of the view that he should be allowed to on interim bail with conditions.

7. Hence, it is ordered.

8. As a result, the petitioner is allowed to go on interim bail for a period of three months from the date of his release in connection with S.T. Case No.400 of 2013 with suitable conditions imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam.

9. List on the date fixed for further orders.

10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules and in course of the day.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

TUDU