Orissa High Court
Ramesh Prasad Gupta vs State Of Odisha on 8 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.86 of 2024
Ramesh Prasad Gupta ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Suchit Kumar Nayak
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.09.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. On perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the
prisoner's petition, the present JCRLA has been registered.
Accordingly, vide order dated 12.12.2024, the Secretary, Orissa High
Court Legal Services Committee is directed to engage a counsel to
represent the Appellant. On engagement of such counsel by the
Orissa High Court Legal Service Committee, the appeal was
presented before this Court. Subsequently, the Appellant has
engaged his own counsel.
3. On perusal of the office note, it appears that the same indicates
that the petition has been received in time. Therefore, there is no
delay in presentation of the appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent.
5. Appeal is admitted.
6. Call for the digitized copy of the TCR.
7. List this matter immediately after receipt of the TCR.
8. This is an application for staying the realization of fine
amount.
9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Respondent.
10. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for
the Petitioner-Appellant, it is directed that realization of fine amount
under the impugned judgment in 2(a)C.C. No.133/2023(N) passed by
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (N.D.P.S.),
Berhampur shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal.
11. The I.A. is disposed of.
12. This interlocutory application has been filed by the Petitioner-
Appellant seeking his release on bail.
13. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Respondent.
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, at the outset,
contended that the Petitioner-Appellant having been convicted by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(N.D.P.S.),
Berhampur in 2(a)C.C. No.133/2023(N) for commission of an
offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act whereby
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and six months and to pay
fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months, has
approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant further contended
that the Petitioner-Appellant is in custody from 16.10.2023 to till
date. As such, he has already undergone two years and one month of
sentence. He further contended that unless the Petitioner-Appellant
is released on bail, the appeal will become infructuous.
16. Taking into consideration the period of detention of the
Petitioner-Appellant in judicial custody, it is directed that the
Petitioner-Appellant be released on bail by the learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(N.D.P.S.), Berhampur in 2(a)C.C.
No.133/2023(N) on such terms and conditions as it may deem just
and proper. It is made clear that violation of any of the conditions,
which is likely to be imposed by the trial court, shall entail
cancellation of bail.
17. The I.A. is disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
