Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra vs State Of Odisha on 18 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.475 of 2022
Krushna Chandra .... Appellant/
Sanibigraha Petitioner
Mr. B.R. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Smt. Saswata Patnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 18.10.2023
I.A. No.1469 of 2023
08. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for
the offences punishable under sections 376(2)(i)/506
of the I.P.C. and section 6 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous
// 2 //
imprisonment for a further period of one year for the
offence under section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one
thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of two months for
the offence under section 506 of the I.P.C. and in
view of section 42 of the POCSO Act, no separate
sentence has been awarded for the offence under
section 6 of the POCSO Act and both the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge,
Balasore in Special Case No.207 of 2015/Trial
No.03/2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has
taken into judicial custody on the date of
pronouncement of the judgment i.e. 30.05.2022.
Learned counsel placed the evidence of the victim
(P.W.2) and her mother (P.W.3) and stated that
though in their chief-examination, they supported the
prosecution case but in their cross-examination, they
have spoiled the prosecution case and in view of such
evidence in their cross-examination, it is very difficult
to sustain the conviction of the petitioner and
therefore, it is a fit case where the petitioner should
be granted bail.
// 3 //
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
for bail.
It appears that the petitioner was granted
interim bail for a period of four months vide order
dated 22.11.2022 passed in I.A. No.907 of 2022 and
after availing the same, he surrendered at right time
and learned counsel for the State has not brought
anything on record to show that he has mistulized the
liberty while he was on bail.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature
of evidence adduced by the witnesses during trial, the
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the fact
that the petitioner was on bail during trial and
absence of 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 including the conditions that he shall not
try to come in contact with the victim or her family
members and shall not indulge in any criminal
activities.
// 4 //
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
sipun
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Oct-2023 15:30:00
