Facts
The petitioner, Hasin Nayak, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in two criminal cases: Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 30 of 2026, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 34 of 2026, and Jeypore Town P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 65 of 2026.
Source reference: para. 1; p. 1–2Both matters were pending before the Special Court under the POCSO Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, and involved the same accused and victim.
Source reference: para. 1; p. 1–2The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Source reference: para. 2; p. 2The prosecution allegation was that the petitioner had kidnapped the victim and committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3The petitioner had been in custody since 16 March 2026.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3In one trial, the victim had already been examined and testified that she had gone with the petitioner to Kotpad, that her father had lodged the FIR after they allegedly eloped again, and that she had made statements implicating the petitioner under pressure from her family.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3She also stated that the petitioner had not forced her to do anything.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3In the other case, the victim had stated before the Magistrate that she was in love with the petitioner.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3The trial in one case had commenced, while the victim was yet to be examined in the other.
Source reference: para. 5; p. 4Issues
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in both pending POCSO-related criminal cases, having regard to the victim’s statements and the stage of trial.
Source reference: paras. 2, 4–5; pp. 2–4Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the victim, witnesses and the integrity of the pending trials.
Source reference: paras. 5–7; pp. 4–5Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.
Source reference: no citationThe prosecution cases involved Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Source reference: para. 2; p. 2In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material evidence presently available, the victim’s testimony, the period of custody, and the progress of the trial, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
Source reference: para. 5; p. 4Bail could be conditioned by prohibiting contact with the victim, interference with witnesses, and by requiring periodic attendance before the police.
Source reference: para. 6; p. 4–5Reasoning
The Court noted that although the allegations involved kidnapping, rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the victim’s evidence in the commenced trial materially qualified the prosecution version.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3She stated that she had accompanied the petitioner to Kotpad, had implicated him before the police due to pressure from her family, and that he had not forced her to do anything.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3Her statement in the other case that she was in love with the petitioner was also considered.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 3These circumstances, together with the petitioner’s age of approximately 24 years, his custody since 16 March 2026, and the commencement of trial in one case, persuaded the Court to grant bail in both matters.
Source reference: para. 5; p. 4The Court expressly clarified that it was not adjudicating the merits of the allegations.
Source reference: para. 5; p. 4To address the risks of intimidation, influence or interference, bail was made subject to restrictions on contact with the victim and witnesses and to periodic police attendance.
Source reference: para. 6; p. 4–5Holding
The Court allowed both bail applications and directed that Hasin Nayak be released in T.R. Case Nos. 34 and 65 of 2026 upon furnishing bail bonds of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount in each case, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.
The petitioner was prohibited from contacting or visiting the victim, threatening or influencing the victim or other witnesses, and was required to report to the jurisdictional police station once every fortnight, preferably on a Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, for three months from release.
Source reference: para. 6; p. 5The police were directed not to detain him unnecessarily after recording attendance, and the State or informant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon violation of the conditions or otherwise in accordance with law.
Source reference: para. 7; p. 5Both applications were accordingly disposed of.
Source reference: para. 8; p. 6Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233
Original Court PDF
HASIN NAYAKvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
