Orissa High Court
Baidyanath @ Baidu vs State Of Odisha on 3 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.660 of 2023
Baidyanath @ Baidu .... Appellant/
Bhatra petitioner
Mr.D.R. Bhokta, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 03.07.2023
01. CRLA No.660 of 2023
This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard.
Admit
Call for the trial Court records.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No. 1409 of 2023
02. This is an application for bail.
The appellant-petitioner Baidyanath @ Baidu
Bhatra has been convicted under sections 450/354 of
// 2 //
the Indian Penal Code and section 12 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
(rupees one thousand) and in default, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen
days for the offences under sections 450 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (rupees
one thousand) and in default, to undergo R.I. for a
period of fifteen days for the offence under section 354
of the Indian Penal Code and sente3nced to undergo
R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- (one thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for
a period of fifteen days for the offence under section 12
of POCSO Act by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -
cum- Special Judge under POCSO Act, Nabarangpur
vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2023 in T.R.
No.47 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was taken into judicial custody in
connection with this case on 30.04.2021 and as such,
out of three years of substantive sentence imposed by
the learned trial Court, the petitioner has already
undergone more than two years of substantive
sentence. It is further submitted that there is no chance
of early hearing of the appeal in the near future and
balance of convenience is in his favour and therefore,
// 3 //
the bail application may be favouraly considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
evidence adduced during trial, the substantive sentence
imposed on the petitioner, the period undergone by the
petitioner in judicial custody and absence of any chance
of early hearing of the appeal in the near future. I am
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
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 solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court with such terms and conditions
as the learned Court may deem just and proper.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No. 1410 of 2023
04. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed on the appellant-petitioner pursuant to the order
// 4 //
dated 18.03.2013 passed learned Addl. Sessions Judge
-cum- Special Judge under POCSO Act, Nabarangpur in
T.R. No. 47 of 2021 pending disposal of the criminal
appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue certified copy as per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
P
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 06-Jul-2023 14:24:35
