[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Budhan Hembram vs State Of Odisha on 8 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.966 of 2025
Budhan Hembram ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Suryakanta Dwibedi
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Miss B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.12.2025
Order No.
04. I.A. No.2227 of 2025
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-Respondent.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the
convict-appellant with a prayer for suspension of sentence and to
release the Petitioner on bail. On perusal on record it appears that
the convict-appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in S.T. Case No.213 of
2013 whereby the convict-appellant has been convicted for
commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of
IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and
to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand).
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended
that the Petitioner has been convicted only on the basis of the
extra-judicial confession. He further submitted that there are no
eye witnesses to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case is
based on circumstantial evidence as well as the extra-judicial
confession of the convict. He further submitted that the P.Ws.
Nos. 2 to 5 who were stated to the witnesses to the occurrence
have not stated anything against the present Petitioner to implicate
him in the present crime.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument
further submitted that the weapon of offence that has been seized
in the present case is a stick. Thus, the injuries as has been
reported by the doctor could not have been caused by the weapon
of offence seized in this case. He further submitted that there are
so many the names which have not been properly plucked by the
prosecution by leading evidence. As such, the Petitioner has a
good chance of succeeding in the appeal. On such ground, learned
counsel for the Appellant contended that the Petitioner be released
on bail.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further submitted that although the Petitioner has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years, in the meantime has
already undergone imprisonment for two years and seven months.
On such ground also learned counsel for the Appellant submitted
that the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as the chance of
appeal being heard in the near future is very bleak.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that there exists
a prima facie case against the appellant as he has already been
found guilty by the learned trial Court upon conclusion of the trial.
He further laid emphasis on the extra-judicial confession of the
Appellant which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court
while convicting the Appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC,
while acquitted him of the charge under Sections 302/120-B of
IPC. In view of the aforesaid position as well as on the basis of the
materials on record, learned counsel for the State contended that
the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the
present application filed for suspension of sentence at the instance
of the convict-Appellant be dismissed at this stage.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful
examination of the background facts as well as materials on
record, further taking note of the deposition of the witnesses with
a discrepancies pointed out by the counsel for the Appellant at the
time of consideration of the bail application, this Court is of the
view that the Petitioner be released on bail in the present case.
Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner/Appellant be
released on bail, subject to the Petitioner/Appellant furnishing a
bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the court in seisin over the matter.
9. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
10. This I.A. has been filed for stay realization of fine.
11. Heard.
12. As an interim measure, it is directed that realization of the
fine as directed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Baripada
in S.T. Case No.213 of 2023 shall remain stayed till disposal of
the application.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
