Orissa High Court
Mukund Hans vs State Of Odisha on 28 January, 2021
CRLA No. 610 of 2020
MUKUND HANS ... APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
STATE OF ODISHA ... RESPONDENT
I.A. No. 1172 of 2020
02. 28.01.2021 This is an application for condonation of delay.
The Stamp Reporter has pointed out that there is a
delay of eight hundred and two days in filing the CRLA.
After going through the averments taken in the
interim application and on hearing the learned counsel
for both the parties, since it is a case of conviction and
substantive sentence has been imposed, I am inclined to
condone the delay in filing the CRLA.
I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
CRLA No. 610 of 2020
03. 28.01.2021 Defect No. 7 as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter
shall be removed within a period of two weeks as
undertaken by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard
Admit
Call for L.C.R.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
P.T.O.
I.A. No. 1170 of 2020
04. 28.01.2021 This is an application for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 325, 354-B and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine
of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under section
325 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six
months for the offence under section 354-B of the Indian
Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month for the offence under section 341 of
the Indian Penal Code with a further direction that all the
substantive sentences shall run concurrently by the
learned Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Sessions Trial Case
No. 47 of 2017.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
out of five years of substantive sentences imposed on the
petitioner, the petitioner has already remained in custody
for two and half years and there is no chance of early
hearing of appeal in the near future and the 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, the substantive
sentences imposed, the period already undergone by the
petitioner and absence of any chance of early hearing of
appeal in the 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 bond of
Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
The I.A. is disposed of.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
I.A. No. 1171 of 2020
05. 28.01.2021 Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine
amount imposed by the learned trial Court on the
appellant-petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue certified copy as per rules.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
PKSahoo
