Orissa High Court
Jitendra Kumar Das @ Jitu vs State Of Odisha on 9 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.124 of 2023
Jitendra Kumar Das @ Jitu .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mrs. Susamarani Sahoo,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 09.05.2023
I.A. No.262 of 2023
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 376/511/323 of the Indian Penal Code and section
10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a
period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees
ten thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period
of six months for the offences under sections 376/511 of the
Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of six months for the
// 2 //
offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I.
for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for
a period of six months for the offence under section 10 of the
POCSO Act and all the substantive sentences were directed to
run concurrently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -
cum- Special Court under POCSO Act, Cuttack in Special G.R.
Case No.18 of 2018.
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 in any manner. It is further submitted
that there are good chances of success in the appeal and
balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and there
is no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near future and
in view of the statement of the victim, who has examined as
P.W.1, the ingredients of the offences under sections 376/511
of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted and the victim
stated to have disclosed about the occurrence to one Sanju
Khudi, who has been examined as P.W.7 but not supported
the prosecution case and therefore, the bail application of the
petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
bail and placed the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and the
doctor (P.W.4).
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the
prosecution during trial and the fact that the petitioner was
on bail during trial and there is no allegation of misutilization
// 3 //
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.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.271 of 2023
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 as per
rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
RABINDR Digitally signed
by RABINDRA
A KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2023.05.11
MISHRA 16:12:01 +05'30'
