Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Orissa
Order Date: 16 October 2025
Case Number: BLAPL No. 10425 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:ORI:HC:10425
Court: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Hon’ble Judge: Justice G. Satapathy
---
Facts
The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, was the Principal of Swami Arupananda Higher Secondary School of Education and Technology, Kurtanga, in Jagatsinghpur district. The case arose from an incident of sexual harassment of a minor girl student by a Mathematics lecturer named Saswat Kumar Mohanty, who was employed at the same school. On 15 January 2025, the victim girl complained to the petitioner about the lecturer’s misbehavior and harassment. The petitioner conducted an internal inquiry, and the accused lecturer reportedly admitted to his misconduct. However, despite such admission, the petitioner neither reported the matter to the Governing Body of the school nor to the local police, as required under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The victim, dissatisfied with the inaction of the Principal, submitted a written complaint to the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur, during a Jana Sunani (public grievance hearing). Upon receiving the complaint, the Sub-Collector called for a report from the petitioner. After evaluating the situation, the Sub-Collector himself lodged an FIR on 22 July 2025 before the Inspector-in-Charge, Jagatsinghpur Police Station. A “Zero FIR” was registered as Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 07/2025, later transferred to Raghunathpur Police Station as Case No. 155/2025, which was then taken up as Special G.R. Case No. 74/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Jagatsinghpur.
The petitioner was accused not of directly committing sexual assault but of failing to report the offence, which amounted to a contravention of Section 19(1) read with Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act. The maximum punishment prescribed for such an omission is imprisonment for up to one year along with fine.
---
Procedural Background
After the FIR was registered, the petitioner first sought anticipatory bail by filing ABLAPL No. 9129 of 2025 before the Orissa High Court. The Court, however, declined to grant anticipatory bail and instead directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and move an application for regular bail, which was to be considered on the same day. The co-accused lecturer also filed a separate anticipatory bail application in ABLAPL No. 9395 of 2025. The petitioner accordingly surrendered before the Special Court at Jagatsinghpur and applied for bail. The Special Court, however, rejected his bail plea and remanded him to judicial custody.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present bail application (BLAPL No. 10425 of 2025) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking post-arrest bail before the Orissa High Court.
---
The Core Dispute
The central question before the High Court was whether the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act was bailable or non-bailable in nature. The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the maximum punishment under Section 21(2) is only one year, the offence should be classified as bailable under the First Schedule of the BNSS (formerly the CrPC). The prosecution, however, resisted this argument and supported the trial court’s decision to deny bail.
The question thus involved an interpretative issue: how should courts classify offences under “special laws” like the POCSO Act when those laws themselves do not explicitly categorize offences as bailable or non-bailable?
---
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
Justice G. Satapathy began by examining the statutory scheme of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The POCSO Act defines and penalizes a range of offences relating to child sexual abuse but does not specify whether those offences are bailable or non-bailable. Instead, Section 31 of the POCSO Act makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and now, the BNSS, 2023) applicable to proceedings under the Act, unless inconsistent with its provisions. Therefore, to determine whether an offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act is bailable, the Court referred to Table II of the First Schedule of the BNSS, which classifies offences under “other laws.”
According to Table II of the First Schedule of the BNSS:
1. If the punishment prescribed is death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Sessions Court.
2. If the punishment is imprisonment between three and seven years, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
3. If the punishment is imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, the offence is non-cognizable and bailable, triable by any Magistrate.
The Court then analyzed Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, which states that any person in charge of an institution who fails to report an offence under Section 19(1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine. Based on the punishment structure, the Court concluded that this offence clearly falls within the third category—that is, it is bailable and non-cognizable.
In support of this interpretation, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi [(2022) 10 SCC 221; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 668]*, where the Apex Court examined Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court had clarified that where the maximum punishment is up to three years, the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, and where it is less than three years, it becomes non-cognizable and bailable. Applying this reasoning, the Orissa High Court held that an offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act—punishable with imprisonment up to one year—is clearly bailable.
The Court then turned to the constitutional perspective under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Justice Satapathy emphasized that denying bail to a person accused of a bailable offence amounts to unlawful deprivation of personal liberty and constitutes a violation of Article 21. He observed that when an offence is bailable, the accused has a right to be released on bail upon furnishing surety or even on a personal bond if indigent. The trial court’s refusal to grant bail, therefore, amounted to a constitutional infraction.
The High Court criticized the Special Court for failing to notice that the alleged offence was bailable in nature and for mechanically remanding the petitioner to custody. Justice Satapathy observed that the learned trial court had undertaken an extensive analysis of the allegations but still reached an erroneous conclusion by denying bail. The Court described this as a gross violation of the petitioner’s personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
---
Decision
The Orissa High Court allowed the bail application and directed the immediate release of the petitioner on bail in accordance with law. It also quashed the impugned order of the Special Court that had refused bail and ordered the Registrar General of the High Court to circulate the judgment to all POCSO Courts in the state. The purpose was to ensure that trial courts handling offences under the POCSO Act do not mistakenly deny bail in cases where the alleged offence is bailable.
The Court further directed that the copy of the judgment be sent electronically to the concerned court and observed that even if courts are closed for holidays, the bail order must be implemented immediately since the accused was in custody for a bailable offence. The judgment thus affirmed the principle that in bailable offences, bail is not a matter of judicial discretion but a matter of right.
---
Conclusion
The judgment in Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa is a landmark ruling on the classification of offences under the POCSO Act and their intersection with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It clarifies that where a special statute does not specify whether an offence is bailable or not, the classification provided in the First Schedule of the BNSS will apply. The decision also reinforces the constitutional dimension of bail as an extension of personal liberty under Article 21.
By holding that failure to report an offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act is a bailable offence, the Orissa High Court has ensured that procedural fairness and personal liberty remain central to criminal jurisprudence. The ruling also serves as guidance for all Special Courts dealing with POCSO matters to distinguish between serious offences and procedural omissions, preventing unnecessary incarceration for minor lapses.
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Bail as a Right, Not a Favour: Orissa High Court’s Guidance under the BNSS and POCSO Act
2. Failure to Report under POCSO: A Bailable Offence Clarified by the Orissa High Court
3. Liberty, BNSS, and Bailable Offences: Understanding the Case of Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa
4. When Silence Isn’t a Crime: Judicial Interpretation of Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act
5. Protecting Liberty in Procedural Justice: A Simple Reading of Orissa High Court’s 2025 Bail Judgment
No comments:
Post a Comment