Orissa High Court
Jitendra Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha on 28 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1056 of 2022
Jitendra Bhuyan .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. S. Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 28.02.2023
I.A. No.2001 of 2022
02. 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 Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a period six months for the offence under
section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of
three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one
// 2 //
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period three
months for the offence under section 452 of the Indian Penal
Code, R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under
section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of
one year 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 that 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 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
// 3 //
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 his 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) 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.2000 of 2022
03. 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.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
