Orissa High Court
Chepan Mukhi vs State Of Odisha on 29 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.919 of 2024
Chepan Mukhi ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Bibekananda Mahapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
C.M. Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
29.10.2025
Order No.
04. I.A. No.2242 of 2024
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as leaned
counsel for the State. Perused the I.A application.
3. By filing the present I.A the Appellant-Petitioner seeks
suspension of the sentence and to release the convict-appellant on
bail.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset argued that
the appellant is a lady and that she has been falsely implicated in
the present case. Further referring to the materials on record,
learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had no
role in the alleged crime. Instead, it is son of the appellant-
petitioner, who happens to be a juvenile, that is the principal
accused in the case. Further, referring to the evidence of the
victim, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
accused-petitioner only accompanied the victim and that since the
principal accused was in a love relationship with the victim, she
had arranged the marriage between the principal accused and the
victim. He further contended that other than the victim, no other
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. On such
ground, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for the release of
the appellant on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to
the release of the appellant on bail. While objecting to the prayer
for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the State drew the
attention of this Court to para-7 of the impugned judgment. On
perusal of the judgment, this Court found that the learned trial
court has quoted the evidence of the victim, who was examined as
P.W.2 in this case. Further, referring to such evidence, the learned
counsel for the State contended that a clear case is made out
against the appellant. Accordingly, it was contended that the
learned trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting
the appellant under Section 376(2)(n)/ 366 of the IPC.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the
materials on record, further taking note of the fact that the
appellant-convict has undergone imprisonment for 3 year and 3
months out of a total sentence of 10 years, this Court is not
inclined to release the appellant on bail at this juncture.
7. While rejecting the bail application, liberty is granted to the
appellant to move a fresh application after one year, in the event
the appeal is not taken up for hearing.
8. Accordingly, I.A stands disposed of.
9. Office is directed to prepare the paper book.
10. List this matter under the heading "Hearing List" after
preparation of the paper book.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 30-Oct-2025 11:32:25
