Orissa High Court
Bidura Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 10 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.369 of 2023
Bidura Pradhan .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Rajesh Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 10.05.2023
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he
will remove the defect no.5(e) as pointed out by the
Stamp Reporter within a week.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.809 of 2023
02. This is an application for condonation of delay in
preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment
and order of conviction.
The Stamp Reporter has pointed out that there is a
// 2 //
delay of one hundred five days in filing the CRLA.
After going through the averments taken in the
interim application and on hearing the learned counsel
for both the parties, since it is a case of conviction and
substantive sentence of ten years has been imposed
against the appellant, I am inclined to condone the delay
in filing the CRLA.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
CRLA No.369 of 2023
03. Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.808 of 2023
04. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that he confines this interim application for
bail.
This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
// 3 //
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 341/325 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one month and
to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (rupees one hundred), in
default, to further undergo S.I. for a period of ten days
for the offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal
Code and R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
further undergo S.I. for a period of three months for the
offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and
both the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge (FTSC), Kandhamal, Phulbani in S.T. No.17 of
2021(T).
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was taken into judicial
custody on 02.01.2021 and he has already undergone
two years and four months of substantive sentence out of
three years imposed by the learned trial Court and 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
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
for bail.
// 4 //
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
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
RABINDRA Digitally signed by
RABINDRA KUMAR
KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2023.05.12
MISHRA 15:06:05 +05'30'
