Orissa High Court
Boka Pradhan @ Bipini vs State Of Odisha on 15 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.123 of 2021
Boka Pradhan @ Bipini .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr.B.Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp.Party
Mr.P.B. Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate for the
informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 15.05.2023
I.A. No.220 of 2021
08. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
and learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant.
This is an application for bail.
The appellant-petitioner Boka Pradhan @ Bipini
has been convicted under sections 341/324/326/307/34
of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the
// 2 //
Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo S.I.
for a period of fifteen days for the offence under section
341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for a
period of one year for the offence under section 324/34
of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two
thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a
period of two months for the offence under section
326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for a
period of four 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 offence under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 further
R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under
section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and
to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand), in
default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of two
months for the offence under section 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act and all the substantive sentences were
directed to run concurrently by the learned Asst.
Sessions Judge, Pipili vide judgment and order dated
23.12.2020 passed in S.T. Case No.08/08 o f 2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
// 3 //
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.03.2018
and as such, out of ten years of substantive sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court, he has already
undergone half of the substantive sentence. Learned
counsel further argued that P.W.6, who is the injured in
the case has stated that the petitioner was holding one
kata in his hand and attempted to assault him for which
he moved his head and then the petitioner dealt
another blow by that kata which he protested by raising
his right hand and the sharp side of the kata hit on his
right hand upper palm portion for which he sustained
bleeding injury. Learned counsel further submitted that
the injured (P.W.6) was examined by P.W.8, the
Medical Officer of KIIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar and out
of two injuries noticed on the person of the injured, the
relevant injury which is attributed against the petitioner
is one lacerated wound on the right hand which has
been opined to be grievous in nature. Learned counsel
however submitted that since the injured has stated
that sharp side of kata has been used but the doctor
has noticed a lacerated wound and specifically opined
that such injury can be caused by hard and blunt object
and therefore, assault by kata by the petitioner on the
injured is a doubtful feature. Learned counsel further
submitted that there are good chances of success in the
appeal and there is no chance of early hearing of the
// 4 //
appeal in the near future and balance of convenience is
in his favour and therefore, the bail application may be
favouraly considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
P.W.6 & P.W.8 and submitted that there is one criminal
antecedent against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the informant also 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 evidence adduced by
the doctor (P.W.8), the 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, 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.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 5 //
I.A. No.221 of 2021
09. 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 by the learned
Asst. Sessions Judge, Pipili vide judgment dated
23.12.2020 passed in S.T. Case No.08/08 of 2019
pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
sipun
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 17-May-2023 13:33:32
