Dismissed¶18

Bhusan Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2026BLAPL/4151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack; BLAPL No.4151 of 2026; order dated 08.05.2026; Justice G. Satapathy; bail rejection under S.483 BNSS; offences under Ss.332(b), 126(2), 64(2), 296, 351(2) BNS; rape of physically challenged victim; Brahmagiri PS Case No.527 of 2025; ST Case No.10/184 of 2026; prima facie case standard at bail stage; absence of genital injury not sine qua non for rape; liberty to renew bail after examination of victim; petitioner Bhusan Behera; counsel S. Biswal (Soumyajyoti Biswal) for petitioner, S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP for State.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; however, liberty reserved to the petitioner to renew his bail prayer before the learned trial court after examination of the victim. ¶18

Bhusan Behera Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; however, liberty reserved to the petitioner to renew his bail prayer before the learned trial court after examination of the victim.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned for offences punishable under Sections 332(b), 126(2), 64(2), 296 and 351(2) BNS in ST Case No.10/184 of 2026 (Brahmagiri PS Case No.527 of 2025) on the allegation of committing rape upon a physically challenged victim, should be granted bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Presence of injury on the genital of the victim is not sine qua non to constitute the offence of rape; accordingly the absence of marks of violence does not by itself entitle the accused to bail.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Objections such as absence of medical corroboration or the victim's conduct fall within the domain of trial; at the bail stage the Court is required to consider only the existence of a prima facie case.

¶18

Key takeaways

On the materials placed on record together with the statement of the victim, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, and the Court was therefore not inclined to grant bail at this stage.ratio¶18
The petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court seized of the matter after examination of the victim.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under S.483 BNSS for offences punishable under Ss.332(b)/126(2)/64(2)/296/351(2) BNS arising out of Brahmagiri PS Case No.527 of 2025 (ST Case No.10/184 of 2026, FTSC, Puri), alleging rape upon a physically challenged victim. Held: absence of injury on the genital of the victim is not sine qua non to constitute the offence of rape; contentions regarding medical evidence and the victim's conduct are matters of trial, and at the bail stage the Court need only be satisfied of a prima facie case. On the record, including the statement of the victim, a prima facie case was found and bail was refused at this stage, with liberty to renew the prayer after examination of the victim.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4151 of 2026

¶2

Bhusan Behera

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S. Biswal, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

… Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP

¶9

Order No.

¶10

01.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL):08.05.2026

¶12

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶13

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Brahmagiri PS Case No.527 of 2025 corresponding to ST Case No.10/184 of 2026 pending in the file of learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Puri, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.332(b)/126(2)/64(2)/296/ 351(2) of BNS, on the main allegation of committing rape upon a physically challenged victim.

¶14

In the course of hearing, Mr. Soumyajyoti Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner argues and prays to grant bail to the petitioner mainly on the grounds ;(i) the medical evidence does not reveal any mark of violence or traces of commission of rape; (ii) the victim has not raised any commotion during the commission of crime and (iii) the victim being a married lady, the finding of rupture of hymen may not be a ground against the petitioner for the offence.

¶15

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by placing the statement of

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

the victim prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

¶18

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for committing rape upon a physically challenged lady, but presence of injury on the genital of the victim is not sine qua non to constitute the offence of rape, however, the objection as raised by Mr. Biswal appears to be in the domain of trial, but at the time of consideration of bail, the Court has to see the prima facie case and on going through the materials placed on record together with the statement of the victim, this Court is not desisted to say that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence. In such view of the matter and on consideration of the materials placed on record together with the statement of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. It is, however, open to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the learned Court in seisin over the matter after examination of the victim. 6. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter.

¶19

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶20

Signature Not Verified Subhasmita

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-May-2026 11:10:55

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Bhusan Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhusan Behera 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

Chitrasen Parida Vs State of Odisha

Tukuna Das @ Tuku Vs State of Odisha

Manoranjan Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Nakul @ Susanta Gharami Vs State of Odisha

Shakti @ Sujit Narayan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sagar Kumar Dalei Vs State of Odisha