p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.9463 of 2025 Bira @ Birendra Mallik …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. Mr. Bikash Chandra Parija -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Represented By ASC Ms. Gayatri Patra CORAM: DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No.01 ORDER 23.09.2025 F.I.R . No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 0377 14.06.2025 Binjhar pur C.T. Case No.1875 of 2025 arising out of Binjharpur P.S. Case No.377 of 2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur Sections 64(1)/115(2) /3(5) of B.N.S. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. p. 2 p. 2 3. The Petitioner is in custody in connection with C.T. Case No.1875 of 2025 arising out of Binjharpur P.S. Case No.377 of 2025 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 64(1)/115(2)/3(5) of B.N.S.has filed this petition for his release on bail. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.08.2025 at about 11.00 P.M., the mother of the victim, hereinafter mentioned as ‘the informant’, presented a written report at the Binjharpur P.S. alleging therein that while the victim was returning home alone after doing her daily labour, on the way in a lonely place, the Petitioner forcibly dragged the victim to the thatched house nearby, by the road side and committed rape on her forcibly. When the victim shouted for help, her brother and his friends arrived and rescue her from the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 does corroborate with the medical examination report. As it is opined by the treating doctor is that neither there is any confirmatory signs and findings of any forceful sexual offence on the body of the victim nor any sign of forceful sexual violence. It is further submitted that p. 3 p. 3 the Petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner may be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the petitioner considering the nature of allegation against the present Petitioner. 7. Considering the nature of gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner, the stringent punishment provided, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. It is directed that the trial be completed by the trial court as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order pas per Rules. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sumitra