Orissa High Court
Hari Patra vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 19 June, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.94 of 2025
Hari Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
19.06.2025
Order No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2002 dated
8th April, 2003 confirming the order of conviction and sentence
of learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur in G.R. Case No.74 of
1995 on the grounds stated therein.
3. The petitioner has been convicted for offences under
Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and directed him to undergo
sentence of two years in the maximum.
4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than seven
months.
5. Perused the impugned judgment as at Annexure-2.
6. Considering the facts pleaded on record and grounds
stated, the Court is inclined to issue notice to the State for a
response.
7. Ms. Dash, learned ASC accepts notice for the State. An
extra copy of the petition with annexures is directed to be
served on the State.
8. List on 24th July, 2025 for final hearing and orders.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
04. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Instant I.A. is filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act.
3. A delay of 7893 days is reported as per the S.R.
4. This Court by order dated 6th March, 2025 directed the
State to file objection to the I.A., which is still not complied
with. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner assigns the
reason towards delay in filing of the revision against the
impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-2.
5. Prolong illness is a ground shown towards the delay
and alleged default. In absence of any objection from the side
of the State and since the co-accused stands acquitted in the
meantime.by order in Criminal Revision No.424 of 2003, the
Court is inclined to take a lenient view and condone the delay,
which has occasioned in filing of the revision,
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. The I.A. stands allowed thereby condoning the delay.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
05. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Instant I.A. is filed seeking release of the petitioner on
bail with the suspension of sentence in terms of Section 389
Cr.P.C.
3. Considering the facts pleaded on record and the
grounds advanced challenging the impugned judgment i.e.
Annexure-2, this Court is of the view that the sentence awarded
to the petitioner should be suspended for the time being with a
direction to release him on bail subject to suitable conditions.
4. Accordingly, it is ordered.
5. The I.A. is allowed with a direction for interim release
of the petitioner on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.74 of
1995 arising out of T.R. Case No.240 of 1995 upon him
furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety
for the like amount to the satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C.,
Purushottampur, Ganjam, who shall have the liberty to impose
such other suitable conditions as found to be expedient in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
6. List on the date fixed for further orders.
7. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules
and in course of the day.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
