[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Alok Turuf vs State Of Odisha on 20 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.155 of 2025
Alok Turuf .... Appellant(s)
Mr. PVS Nanaji Achary, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 20.02.2026
06. I.A. No.150 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this I.A., the Appellant being in custody
pursuant to the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 26th July, 2024 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under
POCSO Act, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.62 of 2020, has prayed
for releasing him on bail.
3. Heard Mr. PVS Nanaji Achary, learned counsel for the
Appellant appearing through Virtual Court, Jeypore and
Ms. S. Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State.
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Feb-2026 16:10:58
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for the offence under
section 354 of the I.P.C. and in default, to undergo for a
period of three months. He is further sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
(rupees three thousand) for the offence under section 451 of
I.P.C. and in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of
two months. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees
ten thousand) for the offence under section 10 of the
POCSO Act and in default, to undergo R.I. for a further of
six months. He further contends that since the Appellant
was on bail during the course of trial and he has not
misutized the liberty granted by the Court, the bail
application of the Appellant may be favourably considered.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed
the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
learned counsel for the respective parties and the
averments taken in the I.A., this Court is of the view that
the Appellant should be enlarged on interim bail for a
period of two months. This Court, accordingly, directs that
the Appellant shall be released on interim bail for a period
of two months from the date of his actual release from the
custody in connection with the above noted case by the
learned Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and
conditions as deemed just and proper with further
conditions that he will positively surrender before the
learned Court in seisin over the matter on the date as would
be so directed. The Appellant is also directed not to
threaten the victim or her family members in any manner.
7. This I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.
8. List this matter on 13th May, 2026 for final hearing.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
10. Both the parties are directed to file their respective
written notes of submissions on or before the next date of
listing of this matter.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Sipun
