Orissa High Court
Nrupalal Dev vs State Of Odisha on 18 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.652 of 2024
Nrupalal Dev ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Laxminarayan Patel
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.08.2025
Order No.
08. I.A. No.1587 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
counsel for the State.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the
appellant-convict for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of
the Cr.P.C./ grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset contended
that the appellant, who happens to be the husband of the
informant-victim, has been convicted for commission of a crime
punishable under Section 498(A)/307/294/506/34 of the I.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found to be guilty
vide judgment dated 21.06.2024 and he has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default to undergo R.I. for further period of 6 months under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. He has also been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for commission
of offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Both the sentences
have been directed to run concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing, advanced
the argument to release the appellant on bail by suspending the
sentence, submitted before this Court that the injury sustained by
the injured is simple in nature. In the aforesaid context, he
referred to the evidence of the Medical Officer who had
conducted the medical examination of the informant and who has
been examined as P.W. 9. He further submitted that there are no
independent materials to sustain the conviction on the appellant
under the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant is languishing in custody since
21.06.2024 i.e. for a period of more than one year. He further
contended that taking into consideration the nature of the
allegation, there is every likelihood that the offence might get
modified and the sentence is likely to be reduced.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the release of the appellant on bail. She further submitted that
there is ample material on record to hold the appellant guilty of
the charges and, accordingly, the learned trial court has not
committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under the
alleged sections. Therefore, she submitted that the appellant is
not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing from both
sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further
taking into consideration the medical evidence, particularly, the
injury report as well as the evidence of the M.O., who has been
examined as P.W. 9, this Court found that the injury sustained in
the neck of the injured is simple in nature. Further, taking into
consideration the fact that the appellant is in custody for more
than one year, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on
bail subject to such terms and conditions as would be deemed just
and proper by the learned trial court.
8. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 19-Aug-2025 15:07:11
