Orissa High Court
Chandra Sahu @ Harish vs State Of Odisha & Another … Opposite … on 26 June, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 12881 of 2024
Chandra Sahu @ Harish ... Petitioner
Chandra Sahu
Mr. A.P. Thanapati, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Another ... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Pradhan, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
26.06.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by
the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with
Puintala P.S. Case No.74 of 2023 corresponding to
Spl. G.R. Case No.22 of 2023 pending in the file of
learned A.D.J.-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Balangir,
for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.
376(3)/506/109 of IPC r/w. Section 6 of POCSO Act,
on the allegation of kidnapping the victim aged about
13 years and committing rape and aggravated
penetrative sexual assault upon her.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Ananta Prasad
Thanapati, learned counsel for the petitioner while
taking this Court through the evidence of the victim
submits that although it is alleged against the
Page 1 of 3
petitioner for administering some intoxicant to the
victim to commit the crime, but the victim in her
evidence has clearly admitted that she was given
plain and simple water and although the accused was
known to the victim for five months, he was neither
talking with the victim nor visited any place with her
before the incident. Mr. Thanapati also by taking this
Court through the medical evidence of the victim
submits that the medical evidence completely rules
out any sexual assault on the victim by the petitioner.
Mr. Thanapati under aforesaid submission prays to
allow the bail application of the petitioner.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A. Pradhan, learned
Addl. PP, however, by showing the medical report of
the victim submits that since the victim was sexually
exploited with tongue and finger which constitutes
rape and penetrative sexual assault in terms of the
definition of penal provisions and the petitioner
having prima facie found to have committed sexual
offence upon the victim is not entitled to get any
relief of bail. Accordingly, Mr. Pradhan prays to reject
the bail application of the petitioner.
3.2. On the other hand, the father of the victim
appearing virtually through Police Station, prays to
reject the bail application of the petitioner.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
and taking into consideration the nature and gravity
of the offence as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-
Page 2 of 3
vis the accusations sought to be brought against him
and on going through the evidence of the victim and
taking into account the other circumstance on record
in entirety including the presumption as available
U/S. 29 of the POCSO Act which prescribes that once
a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or
attempting to commit any offence U/Ss.3/5/7/9 of
POCSO Act, there shall be presumption of commission
of such offence against the said person, unless the
contrary is proved and keeping in view the age of the
victim to be 13 years which has not been assailed in
cross-examination, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner
stands rejected. Looking at the pre-trial detention of
the petitioner and submission advanced for the
petitioner, this Court, however, directs the learned
trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as
possible, but the petitioner is at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within six
months hence.
5. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
6. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as
per Rules. A copy of this order be immediately
transmitted to the concerned Court for compliance.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
S.Sasmal
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Page 3 of 3
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 30-Jun-2025 10:34:59