Orissa High Court
Khetrapal Padhan @ vs State Of Odisha on 25 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.783 of 2025
Khetrapal Padhan @ ..... Appellant
Khetrapala Pradhan
Represented By Adv. -
Kranti Prabha Mukhi
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
C.M. Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
25.08.2025
Order No.
02. I.A. No.1741 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard.
3. This I.A. application has been filed for stay of realisation of
fine amount.
4. There shall be stay of realization of fine amount passed by
the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Padampur passed in
C.T. Case No.95/65 of 2013 arising out of G.R. Case No.489 of
2012 corresponding to Gaisilat P.S. Case No.95 of 2012 till
disposal of the appeal.
5. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
6. This I.A. application has been filed for release of the
convict-appellant on bail/ for suspension of sentence under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Heard learned counsel for the convict-appellant as well as
learned counsel for the State. Perused the I.A.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset contended
that the appellant faced trial in C.T. Case No.95/65 of 2013 for
commission of alleged offences punishable under Section 395 of
the I.P.C. before the court of learned Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Padampur. She further contended that vide judgment dated
04.03.2025, the appellant has been found guilty and, as such, he
has been convicted for commission of the crime punishable under
Section 395 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The record further reveals
that the appellant arrested on 30.10.2012, released on bail
15.04.2014, thereafter in the custody since the date of judgment
i.e. on 04.03.2025.
9. On perusal of the aforesaid custodial detention period which
is evident from the impugned judgment at Annexure-1 to the
appeal memo, it appears that the convict-appellant was in custody
for some time during trial, thereafter, he was enlarged on bail,
thereafter, from the date of judgment he was in custody.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset contended
that during trial no T.I. parade was conducted, therefore, the
identity of the accused person has not been fully established. She
further contended that in a case involving the offence under
Section 395 of the I.P.C., the observance on the procedure for T.I.
parade is mandatory, however, the same has not been followed in
this case. On such ground, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that entire trial is vitiated. He further contended that the
appellant had a very good chance of acquittal, therefore, his
further continuance in custody would make the pending appeal
infructuous.
11. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the State
to obtain instruction with regard to the antecedent of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that he does not have any
instruction about the antecedent of this appellant.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that although the
judgment was pronounced on the same date i.e. on 04.03.2025.
However, the judgment was pronounced later after appearance of
the convict-appellant before the learned trial court. As such, he
was also in custody from the date of judgment i.e. on 04.03.2025.
13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the release of the appellant on bail. He further contended that the
appellant has been found guilty and, accordingly, he has been
convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of the materials
placed before the learned trial court. Therefore, there exists a
prima facie case. On such ground, learned counsel for the State
contended that the prayer made by the appellant for his release on
bail be rejected at this juncture.
14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides,
on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking
note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and on a careful examination of the materials on records,
this Court is inclined to release the convict-appellant on bail
subject to such terms and conditions.
15. Further, it is directed that let the convict-appellant be
released on bail in C.T. Case No.95/65 of 2013 arising out of G.R.
Case No.489 of 2012 corresponding to Gaisilat P.S. Case No.95 of
2012 by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Padampur
on such terms and condition as deemed just and proper by the
court in seisin over the matter.
16. It is further directed that the bail granted to the appellant
shall be subject to the verification of his criminal antecedent. In
the event, the appellant is having any similar criminal antecedent,
then this order shall stand automatically revoked.
17. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the I.A. stands
disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Aug-2025 17:24:47
