Ramanath Tanty vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 8691 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CRLA No.96 of 2019

              Ramanath Tanty                     ....      Appellant/
                                                         Petitioner

                                 Mr.Biswajit Nayak, Advocate

                                      -versus-
              State of Odisha                    ....   Respondent/
                                                      Opp. Party

                                 Mr.D.K.Pani,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel

                                CORAM:
                            JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                  ORDER

Order No. 19.08.2021 I.A. No. 278 of 2019

07. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).

This is an application for bail.

Heard Mr.Biswajit Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. D.K.Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. No. 227 of 2014.

// 2 //

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has never misutilized the liberty. It is further submitted that the evidence of the victim indicates that after the petitioner was released on bail, an agreement was executed by him to marry her and the petitioner took her to Hanuman Vatika, Rourkela and put vermilion on her forehead in a temple and then she was residing in the house of the petitioner for some time with him, his parents, brothers and sisters and eating in their joint mess and she stayed happily during that period with the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the medical evidence does not help the prosecution in any manner. It is further submitted that there is good chance of success in the appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State placed the statements of the victim (P.W.9) and that of the doctor (P.W.11).

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, the fact that the petitioner was on bail during trial and after pronouncement of the judgment on 5.4.2018, he has remained in judicial custody and absence of any chance of early hearing

// 3 //

of the appeal in near future, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court below.

I.A. is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge PKSahoo