p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2898 of 2026 Abhimanyu Jena …. Petitioner Mr. A. K. Pandey, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. K. Pati, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 11.05.2026 02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Spl. G.R. Case No.113 of 2025 further correspondent to T.R. No.103 of 2025 pending on the file of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Puri, arising out of Chandanpur P.S. Case No.186 of 2025 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 65(2) of BNS read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. p. 2 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.483 of the BNSS by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Puri by order dated 23.02.2026 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.08.2025 at 07.30 P.M., the informant lodged a written report alleging that her daughter went to purchase a pencil from her village shop on 23.08.2025 at about 5 P.M. After some time her daughter returned to her house and alleged that the Petitioner called her and taken her to cow shed and kissed her. Thereafter, the Petitioner inserted his finger in her private part forcibly. When her daughter felt pain, she cried and after that the Petitioner fled away from the spot, for which, she lodged the report. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 24.08.2025 and charge sheet has been filed on 19.10.2025. The victim as well as her parents have been examined in the meanwhile and taking into account the tenor of their statements, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. p. 3 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes such prayer for bail of the Petitioner. 8. This Court perused the evidence on record and considering the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner (Abhimanyu Jena) and the same stands rejected. 9. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of material witnesses including Debendra Kahar (CW-12) and Bhagirathi Barik (CW-8). 10. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. U.C.C as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Sumita