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.

Binod Samal @ Aju Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2024)

Home
Orissa HC
2024
Binod Samal @ Aju Vs State of OdishaBinod Samal @ Aju v. State of Odisha

Dismissed¶22

Binod Samal @ Aju v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Nov 2024BLAPL/4291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BLAPL No.4291 of 2024, Binod Samal @ Aju v. State of Odisha, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 12.11.2024 by A.C. Behera, J. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 rejected; accused charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act for continuous rape of a minor; consent of minor victim held insignificant; trial not commenced; victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement discussed; liberty to reapply after examination of victim and family members; Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.62 of 2024; Special G.R. Case No.54 of 2024; POCSO special judge, Cuttack.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; no substantive relief granted. Petitioner at liberty to file a fresh bail application after completion of the examination of the victim and her family members; certified copy of the order to be granted on proper application.

Why is it important?

Since the Petitioner has committed rape on the minor victim continuously, the consent of the victim for such incident has no significance; and as the trial is yet to commence and the victim and her family members are yet to be examined, it is not proper to allow the Petitioner to go on bail at this stage. ¶20

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; no substantive relief granted. Petitioner at liberty to file a fresh bail application after completion of the examination of the victim and her family members; certified copy of the order to be granted on proper application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly committing rape continuously on a minor victim, should be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while the trial is yet to commence and the victim and her family members have not been examined.

Court's answer

Since the Petitioner has committed rape on the minor victim continuously, the consent of the victim for such incident has no significance; and as the trial is yet to commence and the victim and her family members are yet to be examined, it is not proper to allow the Petitioner to go on bail at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

Prayer for bail is refused and the bail application is rejected, with liberty to the Petitioner to file a bail application again after completion of the examination of the victim and her family members.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under S. 439 Cr.P.C. refused in a POCSO matter: accused charge-sheeted under Ss. 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with S. 6 POCSO Act for continuous rape of a minor victim (Gurudijhatiha P.S. Case No.62 of 2024 / Special G.R. Case No.54 of 2024, Cuttack). Court held that consent of the minor victim has no significance where rape was committed continuously, and that pending commencement of trial and before examination of the victim and her family members, release on bail would not be proper. Bail application rejected with liberty to reapply after completion of examination of the victim and her family members. (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, A.C. Behera, J., 12.11.2024)

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.4291 OF 2024

Binod Samal @ Aju

Petitioner

Represented By Adv.

-Mr. Arun Ku. Mishra.

-versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Parties, Represented By Adv. -Ms.Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

ORDER

Order No.

12.11.2024

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (Virtual/ Physical) mode.

This bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of the Petitioner arising out of Special G.R. Case No.54 of 2024 in connection with Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.62 of 2024 is taken up for consideration, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Cuttack.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, victim and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The Petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section-6 of POCSO Act on the allegations alleged against him that, he (Petitioner) has committed rape continuously on the minor victim.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted for liberal consideration of the bail contending that, the statements of the victim recorded under Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. are going to show that, the victim had compelled the Petitioner to go with her, for which, the Petitioner had accompanied the victim,

Page 1 of 2

but the Petitioner has not made any sexual assault on the victim, to which, the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the victim herself opposed contending that the Petitioner had forcibly taken away her and then committed rape on her and in case of his release, there is every possibility of threat to her (victim/Informant) life.

As the Petitioner has committed rape on the minor victim continuously, for which, the consent of the victim for such incident has no significance. That apart, the trial of the case is yet to be commenced. For which, before examination of the victim and her family members, I do not feel it proper to allow the Petitioner to go on bail.

Therefore, prayer for bail of the Petitioner is refused accordingly.

The bail application filed by the Petitioner is rejected. The Petitioner is at liberty to file the bail application again after completion of the examination of the victim and her family members.

Accordingly, the bail application of the Petitioner is disposed of finally.

Grant certified copy of this order to the Petitioner on proper application.

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

Narayan

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-Nov-2024 10:49:13

Page 2 of 2

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Petitioner, charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly committing rape continuously on a minor victim, should be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while the trial is yet to commence and the victim and her family members have not been examined.¶20
The court held
Since the Petitioner has committed rape on the minor victim continuously, the consent of the victim for such incident has no significance; and as the trial is yet to commence and the victim and her family members are yet to be examined, it is not proper to allow the Petitioner to go on bail at this stage.ratio¶20

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 4 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C., 1973439¶14
IPC363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3)¶16
POCSO Act6¶16
Cr.P.C.164¶17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of Special G.R. Case No.54 of 2024 in connection with Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.62 of 2024, pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Cuttack.¶14
Prior proceeding
Petitioner charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act on allegations of committing rape continuously on the minor victim.¶16
Prior proceeding
Statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; petitioner's counsel contends they show the victim compelled the petitioner to accompany her, while the State and the victim contend he forcibly took her away and raped her.¶17

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Binod Samal @ Aju¶2
Mr. Arun Ku. Mishra
respondent
State of Odisha¶7
Ms.Babita Kumari Sahu
other
Victim (Informant)¶15

Coram

AI extract

A.C. Beheraauthor¶9

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 20 Nov 2024 · November
Registered: 1 May 2024
Case no.: BLAPL/4291/2024
CNR: ODHC010321512024
Topic: Child Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Bench: Ananda Chandra Behera
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: BLAPL

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ananda Chandra Behera

Krutibas Vs S B I
14 Nov 2024
Dambaru Vs Ganesh
14 Nov 2024
Santalal Vs Nanda
14 Nov 2024
Jahan Beshra Vs State of Odisha
20 Nov 2024
Krushan Chandra Naik Vs State of Odisha
20 Nov 2024
Ananta Dehury @ Mahar Vs State of Odisha
20 Nov 2024

Cite this judgement

Binod Samal @ Aju v. State of Odisha, BLAPL/4291/2024 (OD), decided on 20 November 2024.

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

Statutes4

Cr.P.C., 1973439
IPC363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3)
POCSO Act6
Cr.P.C.164

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of Special G.R. Case No.54 of 2024 in connection with Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.62 of 2024, pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Cuttack.
Petitioner charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366/376(2)(n)/376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act on allegations of committing rape continuously on the minor victim.

View full history

Bench / Coram

A.C. Behera

Parties & counsel