AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Although, the petitioner is the accused in both these cases in Semiliguda PS Case No.30 of 2026 (TR Case No.34 of 2026) and Jeypore Town PS Case No.54 of 2026 (TR Case No.65 of 2026), but the victim in both these cases being one and same, so also the accused-petitioner, who is being represented by one and same counsel, for better appreciation, both these bail applications are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner by way of these two separate bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS has sought for grant of bail in connection with Semiliguda PS Case No.30 of 2026 corresponding to TR Case No.34 of 2026 and Jeypore Town PS Case No.54 of 2026 corresponding to TR Case No.65 of 2026 pending in the file of learned Special Court under POCSO Act-Cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, Dist-Koraput, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.137(2)/64(2)(m)/65(1) of BNS r/w Sections 4(2)/6 of POCSO Act.
Heard, Mr. Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record together with copy of depositions of PWs.1 to 4 in TR Case No.34 of 2026 arising out of Semiliguda PS Case No.30 of 2026. None appears for the informant/victim in both the bail applications despite being duly intimated as apprised by learned Addl. PP.
The main allegation against the petitioner in both these cases is for kidnapping the victim and committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her, but the victim has already been examined in TR Case No.34 of 2026 arising out of Semiliguda PS Case No.30 of 2026 and testified therein that she had been to Kotpad with the petitioner to roam around, but her father lodged FIR on the ground they had eloped again and on being pressurized by her family members, she was stated to have been kidnapped by the accused petitioner and she, thereby, stated falsehood before the police. It is also testified by the victim therein that despite refusal, he forced the petitioner to come and take her, but the petitioner had never forced her to do anything. Besides, the victim in her statement before the Magistrate in the other case in Jeypore Town PS Case No.54 of 2026 has stated to be in love with the petitioner.
Further, the petitioner in this case is aged about 24 years and he is in custody since 16.03.2026, but trial in one case has already been commenced with examination of the victim, whose testimony has already been referred to above, but she is yet to be examined in other case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on consideration of materials placed on record together with the evidence of the victim in TR Case No.34 of 2026 arising out of Semiliguda PS Case No.30 of 2026, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the petitioner to bail in both these cases.
Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioner namely Hasin Nayak in BLAPL Nos.4005 & 4994 of 2026 are allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail in both TR Case Nos.34 & 65 of 2026 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-
the petitioner shall not contact the victim in any way or in any manner and he shall not visit to the house or place of residence of the victim till disposal of the case,
the petitioner shall not threaten, induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses including the family members of the victim acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court &
the petitioner shall report attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday of each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for three(03) months from the actual date of release from the custody.
The IIC of jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated. This Court, however, reserves liberty to the informant and the State to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail, if any of the conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. It is made clear that in such event for being approached for cancellation of bail, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.
Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court, who shall afterwards communicate the same to the concerned Jail through e-mail for reference. The copy of the statement of the victim in both these cases as submitted by the learned trial Court be returned back in sealed cover forthwith.