Orissa High Court
Mahiram Tanty And Others vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 29 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.554 of 2025
Mahiram Tanty and others .... Petitioners
Mr. S. Patel, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
29.10.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.04/08 of 2025 of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh confirming
the order of conviction and sentence in ST Case No.215/07 of
2013-16 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant
Sessions Judge, Sundargarh on the grounds stated.
3. Perused the FIR as at Annexure-3 and other relevant
documents annexed to the same.
4. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners belong to one family and the allegations of
assault is primarily directed against two of the accused persons,
namely, Banty Tanty and Sonu Tanty, who are not the
petitioners herein. The further submission is that the petitioners
are in custody since last eight months but were on bail during
trial. Referring to the evidence on record and other materials
besides the impugned judgments as at Annexure-1 and 2, Mr.
Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a
good chance of success in the revision.
5. Recording such submission as above, the Court is
inclined to direct the State to respond on the plea advanced by
the petitioners.
6. List on 26th November, 2025. In the meantime, LCR be
called for from the court of 1st instance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
IA Nos.972 and 973 of 2025
1. Heard.
2. Instant IAs are filed seeking release of the petitioners
on bail and staying realization of the fine amount as has been
directed and confirmed in appeal.
3. It is reiterated by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners are not the assailants so to say
and the assault has been carried out by the accused named
above. Mr. Mohapatra, learned AGA for the State, on the other
hand, refers to Annexure-3 and submits that the allegation is
against all the accused persons including the petitioners.
4. Admittedly, the victim received injuries of grievous in
nature. Considering the evidence received during trial as copies
of the depositions of the witnesses have been made available at
Annexure-3, the Court, recording the submission of Mr. Patel,
learned counsel for the petitioner about no specific role to have
been played by the petitioners with regard to the assault which
is primarily attributed to the other two accused persons named
herein before, is inclined to direct them to go on bail with
conditions regard being had to the fact that they are in judicial
custody for about eight months after the arrival of the
impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-1. The Court is also inclined
to stay realization of the fine amount until further orders.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered.
6. Consequently, the petitioners are allowed to go on bail
in connection with ST Case No.215/07 of 2013-16 arising out
of G.R. Case No.981 of 2012 of the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh
subject to suitable conditions imposed besides staying
realization of the fine amount as has been ordered.
7. List on the date fixed for further orders.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
