Orissa High Court
Siba Jena vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 19 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.901 of 2025
Siba Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
19.11.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
correctness of the impugned order dated 11 th September, 2025
passed in CRLA No.16 of 2025 by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Athagarh corresponding to S.T.
Case No.322 of 2005 and S.T. Case No.70 of 2023 arising out
of Narasinghpur P.S. Case No.77 of 2004 on the grounds stated
therein.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of first
instance for an offence under Section 307 IPC and is directed to
undergo sentence of four years and to pay fine with a default
sentence of three months, as against which, he filed appeal in
CRLA No.16 of 2025 pending before the learned Court below,
wherein, an application was moved seeking suspension of
sentence in terms of Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., however, it led to
the passing of the impugned order dated 11th September, 2025
at Annexure-4. It is submitted that the petitioner was on bail all
along during trial by the Court's order in BLAPL No.6728 of
2004, a copy of which, is produced today at the time of hearing.
According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, the petitioner
alleged to have caused incised injuries on head and another on
the waist of the victim and it was in course of and during the
incident in question and therefore, under such circumstances,
he should have been allowed to go on bail with the suspension
of sentence, but it has been disallowed vide Annexure-3.
4. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand,
justifies the order denying release of the petitioner on bail.
5. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-4. It appears
from the said order that before receipt of the LCR, the bail of
the petitioner was considered and on the premise that he was
never been in custody declined to stay operation of the
impugned judgment of the Court of first instance and declined
to suspend the sentence as well.
6. Perused the depositions of the witnesses as at
Annexure-5 series. The Medical Officer examined as P.W.5
reveals that the victim, namely, Pitabas Pradhan received
incised injury on left side of the head and one more on the
waist. With regard to the first injury, opinion was reserved,
whereas, the second injury was found to be simple in nature. It
is submitted by Me. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses with
regard to the weapon of offence, whether a Tangia or a Farsha.
7. Recording the submissions as above and the fact that
the petitioner was on bail and even though, he has been
convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC, in having
remained in custody from 21st August, 2025, the Court is of the
view that the petitioner should be allowed to go on bail with
conditions. In other words, the Court concludes that the learned
Court below should have directed release the petitioner on bail
suspending the sentence in terms of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 11 th September, 2025
in CRLA No.16 of 2025 at Annexure-4 is hereby set aside with
a direction towards release of the petitioner on bail in
connection with S.T. No.70 of 2023 (earlier S.T. Case No.322
of 2005) imposing suitable conditions as deemed just and
proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
