Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5174 (ORI)

MUKTIKANTA NAYAK v. STATE OF ODISHA

ABLAPL/12450/2025 · 2026-02-11

R K Pattanaik

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.12299 of 2025 Dasaratha Dalei & others …. Petitioners Mr. A. R. Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC ABLAPL No.12450 of 2025 Muktikanta Nayak & others …. Petitioners Mr. A. R. Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 11.02.2026 03. 1. Both the ABLAPLs are taken up together and disposed of by the following common order. 2. None appears for the informant at the time of call. 3. Instant petitions have been filed under Section 482 BNSS by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Brahmabarada P.S. Case No.240 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Special POCSO Case No.156 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Jajpur on the grounds stated. Page 2 of 3 4. It is informed to the Court by learned counsel for the State that notice has been served on the informant. It is further submitted that the victim denied her examination before the Magistrate. The case diary and other relevant documents including the statements of the witnesses and victim have been produced for the Court’s perusal. The incident has been described in the F.I.R. as at Annexure-1. A copy of the counter F.I.R. lodged from the side of the petitioners is at Annexure-2. It is made to reveal from the F.I.R. that the petitioners committed the excess and as a result, sexual harassment has been alleged against them by the informant. The Court finds that the victim was manhandled during the incident, while she was returning from tuition with her friends and it was committed by all the accused persons named therein. Under the above circumstances and since, counter FIR lodged against each other, this Court, though, not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to any of the petitioners but is of the view that all of them should surrender before the learned courts below and to go on bail with stringent conditions imposed. 5. Hence, it is ordered. 6. In the result, the ABLAPL petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, Jajpur within a fortnight from today and in the event, they surrender in compliance thereof, shall be released on bail in connection with C.T. Special POCSO Case No.156 of 2025 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the p. 3 court below, which shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, none of them shall cause any harm to the victim, while on bail and to cooperate the I.O. in the investigation till its completion. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT