Orissa High Court
Harish Chandra vs State Of Odisha on 5 November, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.681 of 2014
Harish Chandra ..... Appellant/Petitioner
Mallick
Mr.L. Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/Opp.party
Mr.Aurobinda Mohanty
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
05.11.2024
Order No.
I.A. No.109 of 2020
10. 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 to appellant-petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner Harish Chandra Mallick has
been convicted for the offence punishable under section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
(rupees one thousand), in default, to further undergo
R.I. for a further period of two months by the learned
Sessions Judge, Phulbani vide judgment and order dated
30.09.2014 passed in S.T. No.135 of 2011.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was taken into judicial
custody on 26.02.2011 and as such, he has remained in
judicial custody for thirteen years and eight months.
Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the
prosecution is based on the dying declaration of the
deceased Pravasini, who is the wife of the petitioner
before the doctor (P.W.3) and the marriage of the
petitioner with the deceased was solemnized five years
prior to the date of occurrence and he is having a
daughter. Learned counsel further submitted that there
are good chances of success in the appeal and balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner. He further
submitted that since paper book has not been prepared,
there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the
near future therefore, keeping in view the period of
detention of the petitioner, he may be granted bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
for bail and placed the evidence of the doctor (P.W.3),
who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased
wherein the deceased stated that the petitioner poured
kerosene on her and set her on fire. Learned counsel also
placed the evidence of the doctor (P.W.10), who
conducted post mortem examination and opined that the
cause of death was due to septicaemia as a result of ante
mortem burning.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
evidence adduced during trial, the period of detention in
judicial custody and absence of any chance of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future, we are 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.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one
solvent surety 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.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
P.T.O.
11. 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
judgment and order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.135 of 2011
pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
PKSahoo
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
