Orissa High Court
Susantia @ Susanta vs State Of Odisha on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.490 of 2020
Susantia @ Susanta .... Appellant/
Bhutia @ Behera Petitioner
Mr. J. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. R. Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 01.11.2021
I.A. No.938 of 2020
06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
This is an application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under sections 498-A/304-B of the Indian Penal Code
and section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of ten years for the offence
under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for
a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
(rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo further
// 2 //
R.I. for a period of one month for the offence under
section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a
period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further
R.I. for a period of one month for the offence under
section 4 of the D.P. Act and all the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T.(S) No.21 of
2014.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was on bail during trial of the case and
he has not misutilised his liberty while on bail and the
prosecution has not adduced any clinching evidence to
show the cause of death of the deceased and the
medical evidence is also not clear and the materials on
record indicate that the marriage of the deceased with
the petitioner took place in the year 2009 in the month
of Magha and she died on 19.10.2012. It is further
submitted that after the impugned judgment and order
of conviction was passed on 19.03.2020, the petitioner
is in judicial custody and since there is no chance of
early hearing of appeal in the near future and balance
of convenience is in his favour, the bail application of
the petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
// 3 //
for bail and placed the evidence of the witnesses i.e.
P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 14 and also the evidence of the
doctor (P.W.21). The doctor has no doubt noticed one
bruise on the middle of the right side neck of size 2" x
1" which was opined to be ante mortem in nature and
stated that the cause of death was due to asphyxia but
in the cross-examination, she has stated whether the
asphyxia is suicidal, homicidal or accidental was to be
ascertained from the circumstantial evidence and she
further stated that the asphyxia was not due to the
accident as there was defensive injury on the person
of the deceased, which is possible by any blunt object.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during trial, the sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court, the fact that the
petitioner was on bail during trial and he has not
misutilised his liberty while on bail and the period of
detention of the petitioner after his conviction order
was passed by the learned trial Court and absence of
any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near
future, the prayer for bail is allowed.
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
// 4 //
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
