Orissa High Court
Bijaya Nayak vs State Of Orissa on 25 August, 2025
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.102 of 2023
Bijaya Nayak ..... Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa ..... Respondent/Opp. Party
Mr. P.S. Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No. ORDER
25.08.2025
I.A. No.137 of 2025
03. 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.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo
further R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period
of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two
thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period
of three months for the offence under section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed
to run concurrently by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.T. Case No.10/203 of 2016.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.02.2016. The
petitioner along with four other family members faced trial
for commission of offences under section 302/201/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and it is a case based on
circumstantial evidence and the learned trial Court while
acquitting the co-accused persons of all the charges, found
the petitioner guilty under sections 302/201 of the Indian
Penal Code and the only distinct features between the
petitioner and the co-accused persons, who have acquitted
is that the petitioner quarrelled on the deceased on
22.11.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. and there was some push
and pull between them. The learned counsel further
submitted that the doctor has opined that the cause of
death was on account of cranio-cerebral injury and its
complication and injury no.iv is a lacerated wound, which
was over the occipital area and the doctor has stated that
such injury is possible by dash a train and the dead body
of the deceased was lying in the railway track. Learned
counsel further submitted that in view of the available
materials on record and there are good chances of success
in the appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of
the petitioner, the bail application of the petitioner may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
bail and placed the evidence of P.W.6 and post mortem
doctor (P.W.12).
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, absence of any direct
evidence, nature of circumstantial evidence available on
record, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial
custody and absence of any chance of early hearing of the
jail criminal 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 local
solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
RKM
Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Aug-2025 20:14:23
