Rajendra Jena vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 101 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rajendra Jena vs State Of Orissa on 3 May, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CRLA No.120 of 2025

     Rajendra Jena                           ...             Appellant
                                      Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate
                               -versus-
     State of Orissa                         ...         Respondent
                                             Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP
                                CORAM:
                         JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                               ORDER(ORAL)

03.05.2025 Order No.

03. I.A. No.296 of 2025

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. This is an application U/S.5 of the Limitation Act by the appellant for condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal.

3. Heard, Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. None appears for the informant/victim today, although a counsel was appearing for the informant/victim on the last date.

4. After having considered the rival submissions and on going through the averments taken in the IA, since there is a delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal, which is being the statutory right of the appellant to challenge his conviction, this Court notwithstanding to the objection as raised by the

learned State Counsel, considers it in the interest of justice to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal stands condoned.

5. Hence, the IA stands disposed of.

6. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.363/366/376(3) of the IPC r/w Section 4(2) of POCSO Act.

7. Heard, Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. None appears for the informant/victim today, although a counsel was appearing for the informant/victim on the last date.

8. Admit. Since soft/digitized copy of LCR/TCR has already been received, Office is requested to prepare paper books and supply the same to the learned counsel for the parties as per Rules.

9. Accordingly, list this matter on 10.07.2025.

10. This is an application by the appellant for stay realization of fine pending disposal of the appeal.

11. Heard, Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. None appears for the informant/victim today, although

a counsel was appearing for the informant/victim on the last date.

12. Realization of fine from the appellant under the impugned judgment in Special Case No.91 of 2024 of the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Balasore shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal.

13. Accordingly, the IA stands disposed of.

14. This is an application under Section 430 (1) & (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, "BNSS") for grant of bail to the appellant- petitioner pending suspension of further execution of his sentence till disposal of the appeal.

15. Heard, Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. None appears for the informant/victim today, although a counsel was appearing for the informant/victim on the last date.

16. It appears from the record that the present appellant-petitioner has been convicted for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.363/366/376(3) of the IPC r/w Section 4(2) of POCSO Act and is, accordingly, awarded with maximum substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 20 years.

17. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through

the materials placed on record including the evidence of the victim keeping in view the impugned judgment of conviction and taking into account the grounds of challenge of conviction by the appellant, this Court does not find any merit in the bail application of the appellant.

Hence, the present application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence by the appellant stands rejected.

18. Accordingly, the IA stands dismissed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Subhasmita

Location: High Court of Orissa