Orissa High Court
Baishnab Parida vs Bijay Kumar Mantri .... Opposite Party on 11 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.653 of 2022
Baishnab Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. D. K. Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
Bijay Kumar Mantri .... Opposite Party
Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
11.09.2025 Order No. I.A. No.893 of 2022
03. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Instant petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking delay condonation in presenting the revision beyond the stipulated period.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment at Annexure-3 to the revision.
4. A delay of 86 days is reported as per SR. Accepting the explanation offered towards the delay and recording the submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is inclined to condone the same as no objection is received from the opposite party.
5. Hence, IA is allowed with the delay being condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 1 of 3 CRLREV No.653 of 2022
1. Heard.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2017 by the learned court below.
3. The Court is inclined to consider the response of the opposite party and for final order, list the matter on 23rd October, 2025 and in the meantime, LCR be called for.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge I.A. Nos.886 and 888 of 2025
1. IAs are not in record, hence, be tagged forthwith.
2. Since, it submitted to the Court that the petitioner is in judicial custody, accepting the copies of the IAs from Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for him, the matter is taken up for hearing .
3. IAs are filed seeking stay realization of the fine amount and release of the petitioner on bail suspending the sentence in terms of Section 389 Cr.P.C for the reasons stated.
4. The cheque amount is of Rs.2.5 lac, whereas, the petitioner has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.3 lac besides to undergo sentence of one year SI and since the opposite party has already appeared and the petitioner stated to be judicial custody since 12th August, 2025, taking into account the grounds advanced, the Court is of the view that the fine Page 2 of 3 amount as has been awarded and confirmed in appeal should be stayed and at the same time, he is to be released on bail with suitable conditions imposed as an interim measure.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered.
6. Consequently, the petitioner is allowed to be released on bail in connection with ICC Case No.308 of 2012 subject to deposit of 10% to the awarded sum and by imposing such other suitable conditions as necessary. It is further directed that the fine/compensation of Rs.3 lac shall not be realized from the petitioner till the next date of hearing awaiting reply from the opposite party.
7. List on the date fixed for further orders.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 12-Sep-2025 12:11:10 Page 3 of 3