Basu Das @ Basumati Paik Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

Basu Das @ Basumati Paik Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, an accused under Sections 377 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act who has been in custody for two years and one month with the victim already examined, should be granted bail notwithstanding alleged glaring discrepancies in the evidence of the informant, the victim and the medical evidence.

Court's answer

The Court refrained from making any comment on the discrepancies alleged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, since doing so was likely to prejudice the ongoing trial.

Ratio / Principle

On going through the evidence of the victim, the Court was not persuaded to hold that there are any glaring discrepancies as being urged by the Petitioner's counsel.

Key takeaways

Considering the evidence on record as well as the materials, the Court was not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage.ratio¶24
The observations made in the order are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and ought not to be understood as the Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner, which has to be adjudged independently in the ongoing trial.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (BLAPL No. 2545 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice V. Narasingh, order dated 02.05.2026) by Basu Das @ Basumati Paik, a lady accused in C.T. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Sohela P.S. Case No.30 of 2024, charged under Sections 377 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending before the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Bargarh, whose earlier bail application under S.483 of the BNSS was rejected by that Court on 18.10.2025. Counsel urged that the Petitioner had been in custody for two years and one month, that the victim had already been examined, and that there were glaring discrepancies in the evidence of the informant and the victim and the medical evidence was unreliable. Having carefully perused the evidence of P.W.2 (victim) and the Doctor, the Court refrained from commenting on the alleged discrepancies so as not to prejudice the ongoing trial, was not persuaded that glaring discrepancies existed, and, considering the evidence and materials on record, was not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage. The BLAPL stands disposed of; the observations are expressly confined to the bail consideration and are not to be read as any view on the Petitioner's complicity, which is to be adjudged independently in the ongoing trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2545 of 2026

Basu Das @ Basumati Paik

Petitioner

Mr. S.K. Jena, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and …. Opposite Party another

Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

02.05.2026

Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.4 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Bargarh, arising out of Sohela P.S. Case No.30 of 2024 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 377 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.483 of the BNSS by the

Page 1 of 3

learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Bargarh by order dated 18.10.2025 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner, who is a lady, is in custody for two years and one month and since victim has already been examined, further incarceration of the Petitioner is not warranted.

And, it is further submitted that there are glaring discrepancies in the evidence of the informant and the victim as well as the medical evidence is also not reliable.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.

This Court carefully perused the evidence of P.W.2 (victim) as well as that of the Doctor.

Since the trial is continuing, this Court is refraining from making any comment regarding the discrepancies as alleged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, since it is likely to prejudice the ongoing trial and on going through the evidence of the victim, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there are any glaring discrepancies as being urged.

Page 2 of 3

Considering the evidence on record as well as the materials, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

It is needless to state that observations made herein are only for the purpose of considering the bail application of the Petitioner and that ought not to be understood as this Court expressing any view regarding the complicity of the Petitioner which has to be adjudged independently in the ongoing trail.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Santoshi

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 04-May-2026 20:08:34

Page 3 of 3