Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Susil Mahanandia Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2023)

Home
Orissa HC
2023
Susil Mahanandia Vs State of OdishaSusil Mahanandia v. State of Odisha

Dismissed

Susil Mahanandia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Mar 2023BLAPL/83/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the filed Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a POCSO case, noting the victim's statement regarding threat perception and her family's relocation outside the state, rendering notice service impossible. The court also directed expedition of the trial.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under S. 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. The trial is directed to be expedited.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The bail application under S. 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. The trial is directed to be expedited.

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case given the victim's testimony about threat perception and relocation. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court rejected the bail application of an accused charged under IPC sections 363, 365, 366, 376, etc., and POCSO Act. Considering the victim's statement detailing threat perception and her family's relocation to Tamil Nadu, the court was not inclined to entertain the application. The petition stands dismissed, and the trial is directed to be expedited.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 83 of 2023

Susil Mahanandia

Petitioner

Mr. N. Panda, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

Opposite Parties

Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER 14.03.2023

Order No.

04.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

On instruction, learned counsel for the State submits that victim along with her family members were staying somewhere in Tamilnadu for which the notice could not be served. In the peculiar circumstances, this Court proceeds to hear the matter.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Spl. Case No.19 of 2020 (POCSO) pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Boudh, arising out of Baunsuni P.S. Case No.90 of 2020 for commission of alleged offences under Sections 363/365/366/294/506/376(2)(n)/376(3)/34 of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Boudh by order dated 03.02.2021 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

Perused the statement of the victim, examined as P.W.12.

Page 1 of 2

Taking note of the same, the manner in which the offence has been committed and also being cognizant of the fact that the victim has clearly stated regarding the threat perception to her and her family and that the fact that the victim and her family has left the State, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.

Since, the petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2020,

learned Court in seisin is called upon to expedite the trial.

Santoshi

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the

rules.

(V. NARASINGH)
Judge

Page 2 of 2

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a POCSO case given the victim's testimony about threat perception and relocation.
2.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order by the Additional Sessions Judge be allowed.
3.
Whether the High Court should expedite the trial since the petitioner has been in custody since September 2020.

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C.439
IPC363/365/366/294/506/376/34
POCSO Act6

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Susil Mahanandia
respondent
State of Odisha

Coram

AI extract

V. NARASINGH

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 14 Mar 2023 · March
Registered: 4 Jan 2023
Case no.: BLAPL/83/2023
CNR: ODHC010004492023
Topic: Child Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Bench: V. Narasingh
Disposal: Disposed Off

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V. Narasingh

Santanu Muduli Vs State of Odisha
13 Mar 2023
Dibakar Majhi Vs State of Odisha
13 Mar 2023
Tiki Sahu Vs State of Odisha
13 Mar 2023
Chandulu @ Bishnu Kisan Vs State of Odisha
14 Mar 2023
Jeetendra Rana @ Jitendra Rana @ Lakhi Rana Vs State of Odisha
14 Mar 2023
Simanchal Sahu @ Sika Vs State of Odisha
14 Mar 2023

Cite this judgement

Susil Mahanandia v. State of Odisha, BLAPL/83/2023 (OD), decided on 14 March 2023.

The High Court of Orissa publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Cr.P.C.439
IPC363/365/366/294/506/376/34
POCSO Act6

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

V. NARASINGH

Parties & counsel