Orissa High Court
Bimbadhar Sethy vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 15 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.575 of 2025
Bimbadhar Sethy .... Petitioner
Mr. Saktidhara Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
15.09.2025
I.A. No.845 of 2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
2. Instant petition is filed seeking condonation of delay in
presenting the revision beyond the stipulated period.
3. A delay of 2367 days is reported as per the S.R.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice since
the petitioner stands convicted for offences under Sections 325
and 341 IPC and has been directed to undergo a sentence of
three years and fine and currently in custody.
5. A serious objection is received from Mr. Sahoo, learned
ASC for the State since the delay is substantial.
6. In course of hearing, it is submitted that the petitioner is
visually impaired and has been issued a Disability Certificate, a
copy of which is at Annexure-3.
7. Considering the facts pleaded on record and the
submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and
even though delay is huge but the petitioner having been
convicted with a maximum sentence of three years awarded
and is in custody, this Court is of the view that the same should
be condoned in order to facilitate disposal of the revision on
merit.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. I.A. stands allowed with the delay being condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
02. 1. Heard.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2000 of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak on the grounds
stated.
3. Considering the facts pleaded on record and the plea
advanced, this Court is inclined to direct the State to respond.
4. Hence, it is ordered.
5. An extra copy of the revision petition with annexures is
directed to be served on the State.
6. LCR be called for. Registry is to take steps to ensure
that the LCR is received by this Court well in time.
7. List on 27th October, 2025 for final hearing and orders.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A. Nos.846 of 2025 and 847 of 2025
03. 1. Heard.
2. Instant I.As. are filed seeking release of the petitioner
on bail and stay realization of the fine amount awarded by the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in G.R. Case No.927 of 1993
confirmed in appeal.
3. Perused the impugned judgment as at Annexure-1 to the
revision petition and the same reveals that the victims were
assaulted and one of them received a fracture injury on his
palm. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is a disabled person and has been
in custody from 5th August, 2025, hence, should be allowed to
go on bail with any conditions, however, the same is seriously
objected by Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
4. Having regard to the evidence received by the learned
Trial Court discussed in the impugned judgment at Annexure-1
and the fact that the grievous injury is not on any vital part of
the victim's body and though others received injuries and as the
petitioner consequent upon the order of conviction and sentence
upon execution of NBWA issued is in custody to undergo such
sentence, the Court is of the view that he should be allowed to
go on bail with conditions as an interim measure awaiting
response of the State.
5. Hence, it is ordered.
6. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released
on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.927 of 1993 with
suitable conditions imposed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.
It is further directed that there shall be stay realization of fine
amount till the next date of hearing.
7. List on the date fixed for further orders.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
