Orissa High Court
Ramesh Behera vs State Of Odisha on 20 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.464 of 2025
Ramesh Behera ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Suraj Mohanty
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
20.11.2025
I.A. No.1123 of 2025
Order No.
04. 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 I.A. has been filed with a prayer for
suspension of sentence/release the Appellant on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended
that the present Appellant is aged about above 65 years and he is
languishing in jail custody for last seven years. The present
appeal has been filed at the instance of the convict-Appellant
challenging judgment dated 17th September, 2024 passed in S.T.
Case No.131 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kodala, thereby convicting the Appellant under Section
376(2)(f)/ 506 of I.P.C. and the Appellant has been sentenced to
undergo RI for a period of 15 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended
that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged seven months after
the occurrence. He further contended that the medical evidence
in this case does not support the case of the prosecution. He has
also contended that the case of the defence that the victim had
illicit relationship with one Nari Behera has been supported by
some of the witnesses as the abovenamed person was seen
coming up to the house of the victim by scaling the wall. Such
fact has also been supported by P.W. No.6, who happens to be a
sister-in-law of the victim. Learned counsel for the Appellant at
this juncture further contended that the testimony of the victim
has not been supported by any corroborative evidence or
independent witness. He further submitted that taking into
consideration the fact that the present Appellant happens to be
the father-in-law of the victim and the nature of allegation made
against him the prosecution story is unbelievable. Moreover, it
was contended that the learned trial court should have such
person independent corroboration to the allegation made by the
victim in the present case in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Such testimony of the victim having not been
supported by any independent material and in absence of any
corroboration by any of the witnesses, it was not safe in the part
of the learned trial court to rely upon the sole testimony of the
victim and to convict the Appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that
the Appellant has very good forms grounds in the appeal and
there is every likelihood that the he might such succeed in the
appeal. He further contended that out of the maximum sentence
of 15 years of RI, the Appellant has already undergone more
than seven years imprisonment. As such, taking into
consideration the advanced age of the Appellant, it was prayed
that the Appellant be enlarged on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
release the Appellant on bail on the ground of gravity and
seriousness of the allegation. She further contended that there is
exists a prima facie case against the Appellant as he has been
found guilty by the learned trial court. She further submitted that
the crime alleged by the victim in this case is heinous in nature
and this Court should not show any leniency towards the
convict-Appellant while considering the bail application. In
course of her argument, learned counsel for the State fully
supported the judgment of the trial court and stated before this
Court that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality
in convicting the Appellant.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for respective parties, on a careful analysis of
the materials on record, further taking into consideration the
grounds raised in the appeal memo and keeping in view the fact
that the Appellant has already undergone more than seven years
of imprisonment out of a maximum sentence of 15 years of RI,
this Court is inclined to release the Appellant on bail subject to
Appellant furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to satisfaction of the
learned trial court and his release shall also be subject to such
terms and conditions as would be deemed just and proper by the
learned trial court.
9. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
