Orissa High Court
Gaita Badeita @ vs State Of Odisha on 15 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.80 of 2017
Gaita Badeita @ .... Appellant/
Biswakarma Petitioner
Mr. S.P. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. A.K. Beura,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 15.11.2021
I.A. No.41 of 2018
05. 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 363/366/366-A/368/376(2)(i)/109 of
the Indian Penal Code and sections 4/17 of the
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees
two thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for
a period of three months for the offences under
// 2 //
sections 376(2)(i)/109 of the Indian Penal Code and
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to
undergo further R.I. for a period of two months on
each count for the offences under sections 363/366-
A/368 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate
punishment is awarded under sections 4/17 of the
POCSO Act in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act
and since the petitioner was sentenced under section
366-A of the Indian Penal Code, no separate
punishment is awarded under section 366 of the
Indian Penal Code and the substantive sentences
were directed to run concurrently by the learned
Special Judge -cum- 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Berhampur in G.R. Case No.76 of 2013.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody
since 17.11.2013 and therefore, out of ten years of
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court, she has already undergone substantive
sentence of eight years and though the paper book is
prepared but there is no chance of early hearing of
appeal in the near future and balance of convenience
is in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is a
lady and keeping in view the proviso to section 437(1)
of Cr.P.C., the bail application of the petitioner may
// 3 //
be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
the victims P.W.2 as well as P.W.5.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during trial, the
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court, the period already undergone by the petitioner
in judicial custody, absence of any chance of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future and keeping in
view the proviso to section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., the
prayer for bail is allowed.
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 trial Court.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
JRCLA No.80 of 2017
06. A copy of the paper book shall be supplied to the
learned counsel for the appellant.
// 4 //
List this matter along with JCRLA No.85 of 2017
in the week commencing from 17.01.2022.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
