Does Google penalize SEO hosting

No. Hosting a site on its own IP address is not a violation of anything, and no guideline anywhere says otherwise. Dedicated addressing is ordinary infrastructure, used by plenty of businesses that have never thought about SEO. What does attract attention is a network built purely to manipulate links, and where that is what you have, the hosting arrangement is not what saves or sinks it.

Separating two different questions

People usually mean one of two things by this question, and they have different answers.

Is dedicated hosting itself penalised? No. There is no rule against it and no signal derived from it. Equally, there is no bonus. A dedicated address does not improve rankings, and any host implying that it does is overselling.

Are link networks penalised? Yes, and openly. Schemes that exist to pass links rather than serve readers are covered directly in Google's Search documentation. That judgement is about intent and content, not about which address answered the request.

What actually gets a network flagged

Footprint, not hosting. A footprint is any signal that says a group of nominally independent sites is really one operation. The technical ones are the easiest to remove and the ones people fixate on:

• Every site on the same address or on consecutive addresses.
• Every domain resolving through one shared nameserver pair.
• Identical DNS records across the estate.

Those are the ones dedicated addressing and private nameservers deal with. The rest are not technical at all, survive any hosting change, and are where most networks actually give themselves away:

• The same theme and layout everywhere.
• Domains registered in one batch at one registrar.
• A single analytics or advertising identifier across the estate.
• Interlinking so uniform that no independent publisher would produce it.
• Thin or spun content that would not survive being read.

The realistic way to think about it

Address diversity is defensive. It stops one trivially checkable attribute from grouping your sites for anyone who looks. It is worth doing for the same reason you would not run a company's twelve brands off one shared IP with one nameserver pair: it is simply better arrangement.

It is not protection, and treating it as protection is how people end up surprised. If the content is the problem, no allocation of addresses fixes it. If the interlinking is the problem, the same applies. The infrastructure buys you the ability to be judged site by site. Whether that judgement goes well is decided by what is on the sites.

For the practical side of footprints, see IP Diversity, and for choosing how far to take the separation, IP Classes Explained.