The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10126 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Khatua …. Petitioner(s) State of Odisha Ms. Subhashree Sen, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Siva Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. 02. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 24.12.2025 Heard. The petitioner is an accused in connection with T.R. Case No.353 of 2025 arising out of Nandankanan P.S. Case No.257 of 2025 registered on the allegation of the commission of the offence under Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act pending in the Court of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Special Court (POCSO), Bhubaneswar. 3. The petitioner had approached the learned Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 04.09.2025 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for enlargement on bail. Page 1 of 6 4. On 29.09.2025, this Court issued notice to the informant, but none appeared on behalf of the informant and/or victim. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.07.2025 the informant, being the father of the victim, lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Nandankanan Police Station inter alia alleging therein that he is a resident of West Bengal and had come to Bhubaneswar along with his younger son, a lawn tennis player who had been participating in national and international tournaments, with a view to enrolling him in a suitable Lawn Tennis Academy. For that purpose, the informant intended to settle his son at Bhubaneswar after the completion of trial sessions at different tennis academies. In that process, the informant, along with the father of another tennis player, had jointly taken on rent House No. MR-111 at Maruti Residency, Raghunathpur, though they were planning to vacate the said premises within a few days as it was situated at a considerable distance from the academy. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the victim and his friend, who is also a Page 2 of 6 tennis player, used to take massage sessions regularly for relaxation of muscle stiffness. During one such session, the present petitioner, who was engaged as a masseur, allegedly pulled down the victim’s shorts while massaging him, though the victim was wearing undergarments, which made the victim feel uncomfortable as the shorts were pulled down excessively. Thereafter, after massaging the victim from the back, the petitioner allegedly asked him to lie on his back and then placed his hand on the victim’s private parts and fondled him for about five minutes. It is further alleged that the petitioner thereafter pulled down the victim’s undergarment and touched his private parts directly. While doing so, the petitioner allegedly came very close to the victim’s face, giving the impression that he was attempting to hug him. It is further alleged that during the session, the door of the room was at times opened by the victim’s friend, namely Swapnil, who was using the attached bathroom, and during such intervals the petitioner allegedly stopped the inappropriate act. However, when the victim was alone in the room and the door was closed from inside, the petitioner is alleged to have continued the inappropriate touching for about five minutes. Ultimately, the victim left the room, contacted the informant over Page 3 of 6 phone, and narrated the incident to him, pursuant to which the present F.I.R. was lodged. 7. The petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2025. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the trial is proceeding at an expected pace. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination of the victim has been deferred as he has not appeared before learned trial Court. Ms. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the testimony of the doctor, who was examined as P.W.7. He deposed as under:- “2. On the same day at 3:00 p.m., I examined the victim boy and submitted my report. This is my said report marked Ext.p-4/7 and this is my signature with seal on the last page of the said report, marked Ext.P- 4/8. After due examination of the accused, I have formed my opinion as follows:- (i) The medical examination of the victim boy did not reveal any sign and symptom of recent forcible sexual assault; (ii) No external injury was found over the genital parts of the victim boy; (iii) No suspicious incriminating stain or any foreign particle was detected inside the genital area of the victim boy; (iv) The medical examination of the victim boy did not reveal any bodily injury suggesting forcible sexual assault.” 8. The prime allegation against the petitioner is that he has inappropriately behaved/touched the teenage boy/victim while giving massage to him. The victim boy happens to be a Tennis Page 4 of 6 Player and the petitioner is a massager, who was giving massage after the game. It is alleged that the petitioner has inappropriately behaved with the teenage boy, but there is no allegation of penetrative sexual act. To some extent the allegation made in the F.I.R. is negated by the medical evidence as mentioned above. Therefore, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each date on which the case is posted for trial. (ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (iii) He shall not keep in contact with the victim or his family members in any manner whatsoever. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such Page 5 of 6 application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Dec-2025 17:22:19 Page 6 of 6