The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK … Petitioners Dambarudhar Pradhan (In BLAPL No. 7217 of 2025) Pradeepta Kumar Dash @ Pradipta Dash (In BLAPL No. 3351 of 2025) Hemanta Pradhan (In BLAPL No. 7218 of 2025) Aru Sahoo (In BLAPL No. 7296 of 2025) Biswajit Pradhan (In BLAPL No. 7457 of 2025) Madhab Maharana (In BLAPL No. 7593 of 2025) Bijay Kumar Das (In BLAPL No. 7765 of 2025) Sanjaya Parida @ Sanjaya Kumar Parida (In BLAPL No. 7919 of 2025) Bhagaban Mohanty (In BLAPL No. 7956 of 2025) Manasa Nayak (In BLAPL No. 8098 of 2025) Kanha @ Kanhu Charan Jena (In BLAPL No. 8119 of 2025) Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate (For BLAPL Nos. 7217, 7218 & 8098 of 2025) Mr. K.K. Patel, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 3351 of 2025) Mr. S.P. Mahapatra, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 7296 of 2025) Ms. D. Mahapatra, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 7457 of 2025) Mr. T.P. Mohapatra, Advocate (In BLAPL Nos. 7593 & 8119 of 2025) Mr. A.K. Patra, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 7765 of 2025) Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate (For BLAPL No. 7919 of 2025) Ms. A. Mishra, Advocate Page 1 of 6 (For BLAPL No. 7956 of 2025) -versus- State of Odisha and another … Opposite Parties Mr. T.K. Acharya, Addl. PP Order No. 03. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 17.09.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these eleven bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with
Legal Reasoning
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Talabania PS Case No.23 of 2025 corresponding to TR Case No.35 of 2025 (Spl. GR Case No.17 of 2025) pending in the file of learned Additional District Judge-Cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Puri, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.120(B)/ 341/ 323/ 376(3)/ 376(2)(n)/ 376(2)(f)/ 370(5)/ 366(A)/ 370(A) of IPC r/w Sections 6/17 of POCSO Act along with Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, on the main allegation of throwing the victims to flesh trade by way of human trafficking and committing rape upon these three victims, out of whom two are minors being less Page 2 of 6 than 18 years and also for committing aggravated
Legal Reasoning
penetrative sexual assault upon the victims. 4. Heard, Mr. Kaustuva Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.7217, 7218 & 8098 of 2025; Mr. Kiran Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.3351 of 2025; Mr. Sudhansu Prasad Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7296 of 2025; Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7457 of 2025; Mr. Tara Prasad Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.7593 & 8119 of 2025; Mr. Amit Kumar Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7765 of 2025; Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7919 of 2025; Ms. Anwesha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7956 of 2025 and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 5. The sum and substance of submission as advanced for the petitioners are that although there is allegation against the petitioners as customers of the victims, but the main allegation is directed against co- accused Sudam Parida, Chandrakanta Pujari and Ranjulata Das, however, the victims have not uttered the name of any of the petitioners to be the preparator of the crime in their evidence and even there is identification of some of the petitioners in the TI parade, but such identification being not a substantive Page 3 of 6 piece of evidence, it loses sanctity when the victims themselves have not identified any of the petitioners in the Court. It is also submitted for the petitioners that they have been detained in custody for substantial period and in the meantime, the victims having already been examined, there being hardly any apprehension of tampering of prosecution evidence of material witnesses and therefore, there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the petitioners. 5.1. On the other hand, bail to the petitioners is opposed to by Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP by relying upon the TI parade report and the identification of the petitioners in such TI parade. 6. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for committing sexual offences, but all the three victims while being examined in the trial have not specifically attributed any overt act against any of these petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are in custody and the victims having already been examined in this case, there would be hardly any apprehension of tampering of prosecution evidence of material witnesses like the victims. No doubt the learned State opposes the bail applications of the petitioners by mainly relying upon the identification of some of the petitioners in the TI parade, but law is fairly well settled that TI parade report is not a substantive piece of evidence and the Page 4 of 6 identification of the victims in the Court is material and substantive evidence. In the aforesaid premises and backdrop and taking into consideration the materials placed on record together with the evidence of the victims as produced for the petitioners and keeping in view the inherent right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits each of the petitioners to bail. 7. Hence, these four bail applications of the petitioners namely Dambarudhar Pradhan in BLAPL No.7217 of 2025; Pradeepta Kumar Dash @ Pradipta Dash in BLAPL No.3351 of 2025; Hemanta Pradhan in BLAPL No.7218 of 2025; Aru Sahoo in BLAPL No.7296 of 2025; Biswajit Pradhan in BLAPL No.7457 of 2025; Madhab Maharana in BLAPL No.7593 of 2025; Bijay Kumar Das in BLAPL No.7765 of 2025; Sanjay Parida @ Sanjaya Kumar Parida in BLAPL No.7919 of 2025; Bhagaban Mohanty in BLAPL No.7956 of 2025; Manasa Nayak in BLAPL No.8098 of 2025 and Kanha @ Kanhu Charan Jena in BLAPL No.8119 of 2025 are allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty- five Thousand) with one solvent surety 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 condition:- Page 5 of 6 (i) the petitioners shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for three(03) months from the actual date of their release from the custody. The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. 8. Accordingly, these BLAPL Nos.7217, 3351, 7218, 7296, 7457, 7593, 7765, 7919, 7956, 8098 and
Decision
8119 of 2025 stand disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Sep-2025 14:34:27 Page 6 of 6