Sisir Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Instant petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with G.R. No. 163 of 2024 (arising out of B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2024) pending in the file of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Berhampur, on the grounds stated.

¶18

Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of rape is not supported by the medical evidence and while claiming so, he refers to the medical examination report of the victim. It is further submitted that there was a dispute over rent on 31^st October, 2024, as revealed by a witness, namely, Puja Pradhan. The said witness, as according to Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel, claimed that the victim had not revealed the alleged mischief committed by the petitioner. With such submission and the attending circumstances, so revealed from the record, the further

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

submission of Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel is that the allegation of rape is a falsehood and the petitioner being a local and the house owner and as he has been in custody from 31^st October, 2024, the Court should allow him to go on bail with any conditions.

¶21

Mr. Acharya, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, opposed such release of the petitioner, in view of the alleged mischief committed by him. The submission is that the victim has narrated the details of the mischief committed with her at the instance of the petitioner.

¶22

Upon a reading of the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS, the Court finds that in absence of her mother and taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner, being the house owner, arrived and committed the sexual mischief. In fact, a similar incident had happened on 20^th October, 2024 and thereafter, on 30th October, 2024, the victim is alleged to have been sexually assaulted by the petitioner. But, after the incident dated 30^th October, 2024, the victim was medically examined on 31^st October, 2024, as made to reveal from the medical examination report dated 31^st October, 2024 and it reveals absence of any sign suggestive of forcible sexual assault or of recent assault. The submission of Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the victim was sexually assaulted on 30^th October, 2024 or shortly before, it could have been revealed through the medical evidence at the time of her examination, but the same is conspicuously absent. The Court further finds that there was dispute over rent, as disclosed by one of the witnesses named above.

¶23

Considering the materials on record, the circumstances under which the FIR was lodged, though, it is involving a minor, namely, daughter of the informant but there is absence of any

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

medical evidence regarding the sexual assault either recent or any such forcible sexual assault, as made to reveal from the medical examination report, she having been examined a day after i.e. on 31^st October, 2024, the Court, considering the same but, at the same time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since it is likely to affect the trial, is inclined to direct release of the petitioner, who is in custody from 31^st October, 2024, however, with stringent conditions.

¶26

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶27

In the result, the petition under Section 483 BNSS stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to go on bail in connection with G.R. No. 163 of 2024 arising out of B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Berhampur, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, he shall not cause any harm or injury to the informant or the victim for that matter, in any manner, whatsoever, while on bail and to furnish an undertaking at the PS in that regard and at the same to attend the inquiry and trial on each date of posting without fail.

¶28

9. The BLAPL is disposed of.

¶29

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶30

Signature Not Verified (R.K. Pattanaik) Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Judge Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GDS Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 19-Mar-2025 11:01:48 Page 3 of 3

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sisir Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sisir Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Swaraj Kumar Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Jena Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Lochan Dehuri Vs State of Odisha

Harsha @ Harsh Sharma Vs State of Odisha