Satya Kata vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 6048 Ori

Orissa High Court

Satya Kata vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 19 June, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CRLREV No.267 of 2025
        Satya Kata                               ....            Petitioner
                                                 Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

                                      -Versus-
        State of Orissa                          ....     Opposite Party
                                                  Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
                   CORAM:
                   MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                     ORDER

Order                               19.06.2025
No.
01.     1.        Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Instant revision is filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 15th October, 2022 passed in SC No.22/09 of 2020-2022 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kantabanji confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2022 on the grounds stated.

3. Considering the plea advanced and grounds stated and submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is inclined to have the response of the State in view of the facts pleaded on record.

4. Hence, it is ordered.

5. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC accepts notice for the State. An extra copy of the petition with annexures is directed to be served on the State by tomorrow.

6. List on 17th July, 2025 for hearing and orders.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

I.A. Nos.373 and 374 of 2025

1. Heard.

2. Instant IAs are filed seeking stay realization of fine and bail of the petitioner.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 325 and 458 IPC, though, originally, the conviction was one under Section 326 IPC and other offence. The injury is grievous in nature as further revealed from the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-2. The petitioner stands convicted for the alleged offences and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and with fine. Considering the circumstances under which the alleged incident said to have happened so revealed from Annexure-1 series, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be directed to go on bail and also the fine to be stayed from being realized from him.

4. Accordingly, it is ordered.

5. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to go on bail subject to suitable conditions imposed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kantabanji in connection with SC No.22/09 of 2020-2022 with stay realization of the fine.

6. List on the date fixed for further orders.

7. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

TUDU