Orissa High Court
Manas @ Manash Jena vs Respondent on 7 August, 2023
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1171 of 2022
Manas @ Manash Jena .... Appellant
Mr. R.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
Respondent
State of Odisha ....
Mr. A. Das
Addl. Government Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 07.08.2023
I.A. No.459 of 2023
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner Manas @ Manash Jena has been convicted under sections 363/376(2)(n)/109 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 6 & 17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months for the offences under sections 363/109 of the Indian Penal Code and to // 2 // undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-(rupees thirty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months under sections 376(2)(n)/109 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months for the offences under sections 6 & 17 of the POCSO Act and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTSC), Jajpur in C.T. Special POCSO Case No.139 of 2018.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has never misutilised his liberty in any manner. Though the learned trial Court has accepted and relied upon on the statement of the victim (P.W.1) has convicted the petitioner but it would be apparent that though the victim stated in Court that the petitioner was a known person to her and she also knew the name of his village but in the first statement before the Investigating Officer recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., she has not whispered the name of the petitioner and in Court during trial, though she stated that two persons including the petitioner committed rape on her but her 164 of Cr.P.C. statement confined only to co-accused Siba and there is no allegation of commission of rape committed by the Page 2 of 4 // 3 // petitioner and therefore, the victim has made improvements in her statement and as such she cannot be said to be a reliable and trustworthy witness and no implicit reliance can be placed on her. Learned counsel further submitted that there are good chances of success in the appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and there is no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near future and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and placed the statement of the victim (P.W.1) and the doctor (P.W.14), who examined the victim and stated that there was no external bodily injury found on the person of the victim and there was no such physical clue found in the clothing of the victim to suggest sexual intercourse and there is no recent sign and symptoms of sexual intercourse.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the fact that the petitioner was on bail during trial and there is no allegation of misutilization of his liberty while on bail and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, the prayer for bail is allowed.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail Page 3 of 4 // 4 // pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge I.A. No. 460 of 2023
03. Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant- petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Date: 2023.08.08 10:17:53 +05'30' Page 4 of 4