Orissa High Court
Sarat Rana vs State Of Odisha on 5 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.168 of 2022
Sarat Rana .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. N. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Rajesh Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
05.04.2023
I.A. No.708 of 2023
13. 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 three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to
// 2 //
further undergo R.I. for a period of three months 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.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default,
to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for
the offence under section 4 of the D.P. Act and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Sessions Judge, Boudh in Sessions Trial
No.01 of 2018.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
except ten days of interim bail, the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 11.09.2017 and as such out of
ten years of substantive sentence imposed by the
learned trial Court, he has already undergone
sentence of five years and six months. He further
submitted that the marriage between the petitioner
and the deceased Laxmibati Rana was solemnized on
17.02.2017 and death took place on 11.09.2017 and
the evidence of the doctor though indicates that the
death may be homicidal in nature and may be due to
mechanical strangulation of the neck and face but in
the cross-examination, the doctor has stated that it is
not a case of manual strangulation i.e. throttling and
he has not found any finger tips or nail marks on the
neck of the deceased and he has also not noticed any
external sign of violence on the body of the deceased
// 3 //
and the doctor has further stated that if one pressed
a pillow or any other material on the face of the body
then saliva and blood would be found on it. Learned
counsel further submitted that there is no clinching
evidence on record that the deceased was subjected
to cruelty soon before her death in connection with
the demand of dowry and therefore, the bail
application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
P.W.5 and P.W.6, who are the parents of the deceased
so also the evidence of P.W.8, who is a co-villager and
stated that a village meeting was convened for
settling the dispute between the petitioner and the
deceased.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced during the trial, 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 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 bail 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 as
per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
