Orissa High Court
Litu @ Ritu Behera vs State Of Odisha on 20 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.24 of 2020
Litu @ Ritu Behera .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Opp. Party
Mr.A.K. Beura,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
20.12.2021
I.A. No. 35 of 2020
06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This is an application under section 389 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under sections 387/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code
read with section 3 and 4 of the E.S. Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years
// 2 //
and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (rupees three
thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a
period of three months for the offence under section
387 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to
undergo further R.I. for a period of six months for the
offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (rupees three
thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a
period of three months for the offence under section
506 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
undergo further R.I. for a period of one year for the
offence under section 3 of the E.S. Act and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default,
to undergo further R.I. for a period of six months for
the offence under section 4 of the E.S. Act and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in S.T.
Case No.87 of 2014.
As per the order dated 29.11.2021, learned
counsel for the State on instruction submitted that the
petitioner has got two criminal antecedents, one is of
// 3 //
the year 2010 for offence under section 394 of the
Indian Penal Code and another case is of the year
2011 for offence under section 279 and 337 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has
never misutilised his liberty and since the date of the
pronouncement of the impugned judgment by the
learned trial Court i.e. 01.12.2018, he is in judicial
custody. He further submitted that out of ten years of
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court, he has already undergone substantive sentence
of more than three years and there is no chance of
early hearing of appeal in the near future and balance
of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of
evidence available on record, the substantive sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court, the period already
undergone by the petitioner in judicial custody and
absence of any chance of early hearing of appeal in
the near future and the fact that the petitioner was on
bail during trial, I am inclined to release the petitioner
// 4 //
on bail.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bond of
Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court subject to
condition that the petitioner shall not indulge in any
criminal activities while on bail.
Violation of any terms and conditions shall
entail cancellation of interim bail.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted
on proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
p
