Orissa High Court
Jogi Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 10 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1152 of 2025
Jogi Pradhan ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Suresh Kumar Panda
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.11.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant files a copy of the money
receipt in due acknowledgement of the payment of cost. The same is
accepted and taken on record.
3. Heard.
4. Admit.
5. Call for the digitized copy of the TCR.
6. List this matter immediate after receipt of the TCR.
7. This I.A. has been filed for stay realization of fine.
8. Heard.
9. As an interim measure, it is directed that realization of the fine
as directed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khallikote, in
S.T. Case No.136 of 2009 shall remain stayed till disposal of the
application.
10. This I.A. has been filed for bail/suspension of sentence under
Section 430 (2) of BNSS read with Chapter-VI Rule-27 (A) of the
Orissa High Court Rules.
11. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
counsel for the State.
12. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that
being aggrieved by judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed in S.T.
No.136 of 2009 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khallikote,
the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
He further submitted that by virtue of the impugned judgment the
Appellant has been convicted for commission of an offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 294, 506 of IPC
read with Sections 3(a) & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that as per the
sentence imposed, the Petitioner is required to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years. He further
contended that the Appellant was languishing in custody from
03.01.2007 to 26.06.2014. Thereafter he is continuing in custody
since 06.01.2025. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Appellant
contended that the Appellant has already undergone sentence for
eight years out of a total of ten years. He further argued that since he
has undergone more than 50% of the sentence imposed, the
Appellant should be released on bail, otherwise the appeal would
become infructuous, as there is a slim chance of the appeal being
taken up for hearing in the near future.
13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the suspension of sentence of the Appellant on the ground of the
gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further contended that
there exists a prima facie case against the Appellant as he has
already been convicted by the learned trial Court.
14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful consideration of the impugned
judgment, further keeping in view the fact that the Appellant has
already undergone eight years' imprisonment out of a maximum
period of ten years, this Court is inclined to release the Appellant on
bail, subject to the Appellant furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the
matter. The release of the Appellant shall also be subject to such
other terms and conditions as is deemed just and proper by the court
in seisin over the matter.
15. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Digitally Signed Page 3 of 3.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Nov-2025 10:18:29
