Orissa High Court
Babulu@Babul Ku. Nayak vs ) State Of Odisha on 25 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.992 of 2025
Babulu@babul Ku. Nayak ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Bikash Chandra Parija
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Respondents
2) Informant Represented By Adv. -Mr.
S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
25.11.2025
I.A. No.2295 of 2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in presentation
of appeal.
3. On perusal of the stamp report, it appears that there exists a
delay of 455 days in the presentation of appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the Respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that
the Appellant is languishing in custody since the date of his initial
arrest i.e. 30.06.2021. He further contended that even after delivery
of the impugned judgment on 21.03.2024, the Petitioner is
continuing in custody. He further submitted that since the Appellant
was in custody, he could not arrange funds to engage a counsel for
filing an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated
21.03.2024. Citing the precarious financial condition of the
Appellant, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the
appeal could not be presented in time. He further submitted that in
the meantime the appeal has been presented with some difficulty.
Hence it was prayed that the delay in presentation of the appeal be
condoned.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the condonation of delay on the ground that there is an inordinate
delay in the presentation of the appeal and that such delay has not
been properly explained.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful
examination of the grounds taken for condonation of delay, further
keeping in view the fact that the Appellant is languishing in custody
from 30.06.2021 and the Appeal being statutory appeal, this Court is
inclined to condone the delay in presentation of the appeal subject to
petitioner paying a cost of Rs.500/- to the Advocates' Welfare Fund
of Local Bar Association.
8. Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed.
9. Heard.
10. Admit.
11. The digitized copy of the TCR be called for.
12. List this matter in the 1st week of January, 2026.
13. This is an application at the instance of the convict-Appellant
for his release on interim bail on the ground of illness of his mother.
14. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that
the mother of the Appellant is serious and she was hospitalised due
to kidney related ailments. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant be released
on bail for arranging better treatment of his mother.
15. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submitted that
the mother of the Appellant was ailing and she was hospitalised at
KIMS, Bhubaneswar. He further contended that the mother of the
Appellant is staying with her husband and elder son. Therefore, the
presence of the Appellant is not required for the treatment of his
mother.
16. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court is
inclined to release the Appellant-Petitioner on interim bail for a
period of four weeks and the period of interim bail shall be counted
from the date of his release from custody. The release of the
Appellant-Petitioner shall be subject to the Appellant furnishing a
bail bond of Rs.40,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the
matter.
17. On expiry of the interim bail period, the Appellant-Petitioner
shall surrender immediately before the court below, failing which, it
is open to the court below to take coercive action against the
Appellant-Petitioner to ensure that the Appellant-Petitioner is taken
back into custody.
18. Surrender certificate of the Appellant-Petitioner be produced
before this Court in the meantime.
19. Accordingly, I.A. stands allowed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
