Manaskumar Nath Vs State of Odisha

F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
305	25.08. 2025	Basta	Spl. Case No.261 of 2025, Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Spl. Court under POCSO Act, Balasore	137(2)/64(2) (m)/65(1)/70 (2)/308(6)/ 351(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-May-2026 21:22:22

¶18

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶19

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶20

3. The Petitioner, being in custody in Basta P.S. Case No.305 dated 25.08.2025, corresponding to Spl. Case No.261 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-

¶21

Spl. Court under POCSO Act, Balasore, registered for the

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

alleged commission of offences under Sections 137(2)/64(2) (m)/65(1)/70 (2)/308(6)/ 351(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶24

4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on August 25, 2025, the informant (Opposite Party No.2) lodged a written report at the police station. It was alleged therein that on January 8, 2025, at approximately 11:30 p.m., the Petitioner, along with three friends, kidnapped her minor daughter and took her to a cremation site near Kalandi. There, they allegedly committed sexual assault upon her individually and recorded the act on video. It is further alleged that they threatened the victim, warning her not to disclose the incident or they would leak the videos on social media. On January 13, 2025, they reportedly called her again, demanding either a continued physical relationship or a payment of Rs.1,500. When she refused, they allegedly leaked the videos on social media.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a young man who has been in judicial custody since August 26, 2025. She argues that there are material discrepancies between the F.I.R. and the witness statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. There is a lack of consistency between the FIR and the victim's subsequent statements. Furthermore, the informant failed to explain the significant delay in lodging the FIR. She further contends

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

that the victim’s statement is exaggerated and its veracity is doubtful. Regarding the viral video, she contends that nothing in the case record or the Investigating Officer's (I.O.) report substantiates its existence. It is argued that the informant has entangled the Petitioner in this case merely to satisfy a personal grudge. Based on the victim's Section 183 statement, if the incident occurred on January 13, 2025, there is no explanation as to why the informant and the victim failed to lodge an FIR immediately, waiting nearly seven months to do so. There are clear contradictions between the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.

¶28

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the medical report is silent regarding rape; it suggests there were no external bodily injuries to indicate forcible sexual intercourse. There were no signs or symptoms of recent sexual activity. Overall, the victim's medical report does not support the prosecution’s allegations of forcible sexual assault.

¶29

7. Learned counsel further contends that the co-accused persons in this case have been granted bail by the learned trial court. In the meantime, the victim has been examined, and her deposition does not prove the allegations made against the Petitioner in the FIR or her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, respectively.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

8. Per contra , the learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. Submitting the school admission register as evidence, she notes that the victim's date of birth is November 9, 2009. As the alleged incident occurred on January 8, 2025, the victim was only 15 years old at the time. Such an act by the Petitioner would have traumatized the victim both physically and mentally. The material witness (the victim) has been examined and cross-examined, during which she supported the prosecution’s case. She further contends that, considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the potential punishment, the manner of commission and the impact on both the victim and society at large, the Petitioner's bail application should be rejected.

¶32

9. As per the documents on record, the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense, bringing the matter under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. The allegations involve not only sexual assault but also the recording and circulation of the act on social media, which constitutes a grave violation of the victim's privacy and dignity. It is noted that the material witness (the victim) has already been examined and has stood by the prosecution’s version. The contradictions pointed out by the Petitioner’s counsel are matters of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of bail. While the co-accused may have been granted bail, the

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

specific role attributed to the Petitioner and the potential for witness intimidation in such sensitive cases cannot be ruled out.

¶35

10. Considering the gravity of the offense, the age of the victim, the nature of the evidence already recorded and the severity of the punishment prescribed, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶36

11. Accordingly, the bail application of the Petitioner stands rejected and disposed of.

¶37

12. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and shall not influence the merits of the trial .

¶38

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶39

Sipun

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Manaskumar Nath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaskumar Nath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Manager,Shriram G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Minati Sahu

D.M.,Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Rajasthan Vs Bandan Singh

D.M.,Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Rajasthan Vs Mukta Singh

Rakesh Nayak @ Thuru Vs State of Odisha

Keshab Bhue Vs State of Odisha

Suku @ Biswa Ranjan Swain Vs State of Odisha