IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.13310 of 2025 Sk Abdul Majid @ Seikh Abdul Mazid … Petitioner Mr. Sk. Z. Hussain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another … Opposite Parties Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER(ORAL) 18.02.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Jagatpur PS Case No.664 of 2025 corresponding to Special GR Case No.190 of 2025 pending in the file of learned ADJ-Cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.137(2)/64(1)/65(2) of BNS r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, on the main allegation of kidnapping the victim and committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her. 3. Heard, Mr. Sekh Zakir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. The mother of the victim appearing virtually also opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that the petitioner would repeat the offence again, if he is released on bail and he is extending threat to her. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner for kidnapping the victim aged about less than 12 years and committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her, but the petitioner sets up plea of insanity and false accusation, however, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from epilepsy and epilepsy is a progressing disease, which subsequently turns into unsoundness of mind, but no medial document has been produced to show that the petitioner has developed insanity in the meantime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has of course relied upon the decision in State of Rajasthan Vrs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta in Criminal Appeal No.1502 of 2005, but that judgment being rendered in an appeal against conviction and sentence, is not applicable to the case at hand in which the petitioner seeks for bail on the ground of insanity and that too, without any medical document of insanity of the petitioner. The plea of insanity is of course provided in Section 84 of IPC (Section 22 of BNS) where if the accused by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the consequence of his act, he can extended with the benefit of that Section, but in this case, no material has been brought to the knowledge of the Court that the petitioner has developed insanity due to epilepsy and he by reason of such unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the consequence of his act. On the other hand, the allegation against the petitioner is serious and grave and there appears the presumption available against the petitioner for commission of offence under POCSO Act in view of the provision of Section 29 of POCSO Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials placed on record, this Court hardly finds the petitioner to be entitled to bail. 5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter for reference. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Designation: Sr. Stenographer