Orissa High Court
Ashish Behera vs State Of Odisha on 7 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1081 of 2022
Ashish Behera .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. P.S. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 07.02.2023
I.A. No.2054 of 2022
03. 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 395/452/323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years
and to pay a fine of 5000/- (rupees five thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a period six month of for the
offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code,
// 2 //
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years
and to pay a fine of 1000/- (rupees one thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a period three month of for
the offence under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code,
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year of for
the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code
and all the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge,
Athamallik in C.T.(S) No.27 of 2021 (Regd. No. C.T.
(SS) No.11 of 2021.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has never
misutilised his liberty. It is further submitted that the first
information report was lodged by P.W.1 Narendra
Mohapatra against unknown persons and no test
identification parade has been conducted in order to
establish the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged
crime. Though in the chief examination, P.W.1 has stated
he knew the accused persons standing in the dock but in
the cross examination, he has stated that prior to the
incident, he had got no acquaintance with the accused
persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in view of the available materials on
record, there are good chances of success in the appeal
and there is no chance of early hearing of appeal in the
// 3 //
near future and 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, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail.
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 there is no allegation of misutilization
of their liberty while on bail 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) each with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.2055 of 2022
04. Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-
// 4 //
petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
p
