Orissa High Court
) Saroj Kumar Bariha 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.366 of 2025
1) Saroj Kumar Bariha ..... Appellants
2) Sagar Bariha Represented By Adv. -
3) Rudramani Meher Jayadeba Behera
-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.
03. I.A. No.890 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. This I.A. application has been filed for release of the
convict-appellants on bail/ for suspension of sentence under
Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Heard learned counsel for the convict-appellants as well as
learned counsel for the State. Perused the I.A.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset contended
that the appellants 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. He further contended that vide judgment dated
04.03.2025, the appellants have been found guilty and, as such,
they have been convicted for commission of the crime punishable
under Section 395 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, they have been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The
record further reveals that the appellant No.1-Saroj Kumar Bariha
arrested on 30.10.2012, released on bail 05.04.2013, thereafter in
the custody since the date of judgment i.e. on 04.03.2025. Further,
the appellant No.2-Sagar Bariha arrested on 30.10.2012, released
on bail 01.02.2014, thereafter in the custody since the date of
judgment i.e. on 04.03.2025. Further, the appellant No.3-
Rudramani Meher arrested on 30.10.2012, released on bail
05.04.2013, thereafter in the custody since the date of judgment
i.e. on 04.03.2025.
5. 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-appellants were in
custody for some time during trial, thereafter, they were enlarged
on bail, thereafter, from the date of judgment they were in
custody.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset contended
that during trial no T.I. parade was conducted, therefore, the
identity of the accused persons has not been fully established. He
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 appellants
contended that entire trial is vitiated. He further contended that the
appellants had a very good chance of acquittal, therefore, their
further continuance in custody would make the pending appeal
infructuous.
7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the
State to obtain instruction with regard to the antecedent of the
appellants. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction,
contended that appellant No.1 is having no criminal antecedent.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the release of the appellants on bail. He further contended that the
appellants have been found guilty and, accordingly, they have
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 appellants for their
release on bail be rejected at this juncture.
9. 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
appellants and on a careful examination of the materials on
records, this Court is inclined to release the convict-appellants on
bail subject to such terms and conditions.
10. Further, it is directed that let the convict-appellants 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.
11. It is further directed that the bail granted to the appellants
shall be subject to the verification of their criminal antecedent. In
the event, the appellants are having any similar criminal
antecedent, then this order shall stand automatically revoked.
12. 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
