Orissa High Court
This Matter Is Taken Up Through ... vs Unknown on 5 February, 2021
CRLA No.117 of 2014
18. 05.02.2021 I.A. No.1043 of 2020
This matter is taken up through Video
conferencing because of COVID-19 pandemic.
Heard Dr. G. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the sole appellant/ petitioner- Sankar
Senapati and Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
This is the successive application filed under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. by the appellant/ petitioner.
Earlier application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
by the convict/ appellant has been rejected by us vide
order dated 06.12.2019 passed in I.A. No.347 of 2019
arising out of CRLA No.117 of 2014.
In this case, the appellant/ petitioner has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of
payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of
fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months
for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. vide the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th
December, 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.173 of 2011.
2
It is apparent from the record that there is no
eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution bases its
case entirely on circumstantial evidences. The
circumstantial evidences are the dying declaration made
by the deceased in presence of witnesses. No recorded
dying declaration is available. The dying declaration has
been made orally before the prosecution witnesses. The
other circumstance is leading to discovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
appellant/ petitioner is in custody since April, 2011.
Almost ten years have elapsed in the meantime. Paper
Book has not been prepared. So, the appeal even after 6
years of presentation in Court is not ripe for hearing.
Dr. G. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant/ petitioner submits that
there is slim probability of the appeal being taken up for
final disposal in near future. He argues that there are
good chances of this appeal being allowed in its final
hearing. Moreover, the appellant/ petitioner is a
permanent resident of village Ranganibandha Sahi,
Berhampur, P.S.- Badabazar, District- Ganjam, at
present residing at Village- Thuba, P.S.- Nandapur,
District- Koraput. So, there is no reasonable
apprehension of his absconding from the process of
justice.
3
Keeping in view the aforesaid consideration, we
are inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail
upon appeal to the appellant/ petitioner. Accordingly,
the prayer for bail upon appeal of the appellant/
petitioner- Sankar Senapati is allowed.
Let the appellant/ petitioner- Sankar Senapati
be released on bail on such suitable terms and
conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned
Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in the aforesaid
case.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
As restrictions are continuing due to COVID-19
pandemic, learned counsel for the parties may utilize
the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's
official website or print out thereof at par with certified
copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice
No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
............................
S. K. Mishra, J.
...............................
B.P. Routray, J.
BJ
