Allowed

Dillip Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Oct 2020BLAPL/4987/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a successive bail application by a petitioner implicated in IPC offences 342, 506, and 376 alongside POCSO Section 4. Relying on a medical report indicating non-penetrative assault and noting that this fact was not raised earlier, the court released the petitioner on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted on bail on such terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Court.

Dillip Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

BLAPL No. 4987 of 2020

¶2

Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

09.10.2020

¶4

Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.S.P. Baboo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶5

The petitioner is implicated for commission of offence under Sections 342/506/376 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act in connection with Nayapalli P.S. Case No. 292 of 2019 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 279 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.

¶6

This is a successive bail application filed by the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier BLAPL No.116 of 2020 was dismissed on 10.06.2020 relying upon the statement of the victim as well as her mother recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which revealed a case under Section 376 I.P.C.

¶8

It is submitted that the accused is in custody since 19.12.2019. Although an allegation under Section 376 (1) I.P.C. has been made, but there is no iota of material on record to show that there is penetrative sexual assault. On the other hand, the medical report shows that the vaginal canal admits the tip of the finger only, which rules out any penetrative sexual assault, as

¶9

¶10

alleged. This fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court while moving the earlier bail application. The petitioner is innocent and is languishing behind bars since 19.12.2019. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶11

Mr. Baboo, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that considering the materials available on record, this Court has earlier rejected the bail application. Thus, the arguments advanced, as above, cannot be said to be a changed circumstance to entertain a successive bail application. However, he could not dispute the opinion of the medical officer in his report to the effect that the vaginal canal of the victim admits tip of the finger only.

¶12

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and that the petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2019 and the aforesaid opinion of the medical officer was not brought to the notice of this Court while moving the earlier bail application, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner should be admitted on bail on such terms and conditions to the satisfaction of learned Court in seisin of the matter. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not influence and terrorize witnesses and the family members of the victim and shall not be indulged in any kind of criminal activities.

¶13

BLAPL is accordingly allowed.

¶14

¶15

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶16

..………………………….

¶17

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶18

bct

Dillip Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trailokyanath Sahani Vs Sachinath Sahani

Ganeswar Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Binapani Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sukanti Sahu Vs Odisha Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd.(Orhdc)

Bhaktahari Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Shamshad Begum Vs Union of India