Orissa High Court
Debaraj Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 17 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.126 of 2024
Debaraj Pradhan ..... Appellant/Petitioner
Miss. B.Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order No. ORDER
17.09.2025
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Perused the prisoner' petition at flag 'B' in which prayer
has been made to engage Miss Binapani Tripathy and Nandini
Tripathy, learned counsel as his advocate.
Miss Binapani Tripathy, learned counsel and her
associates have filed power for the appellant, which is
accepted.
The name of Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel
shall not be reflected in the cause list henceforth.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
02. This is an application for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a further period of one year by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur vide judgment and
order dated 25.10.2017 passed in S.T. No. 107 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.03.2013 and
as such, he has remained in custody for more than twelve
years and six months. Learned counsel further submitted
that though P.W.1 was examined as an eye witness to the
occurrence but he has not supported the prosecution
case, for which he was declared hostile. She further
submitted that there is no other clinching material except
the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8) who conducted post
mortem examination and noticed two incised wounds on
the person of the deceased and there is no chance of
early hearing of the appeal in the near future and
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
bail and placed the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the period of detention
of the petitioner in judicial custody, the nature of
evidence adduced during trial, since the eye witness has
not supported the prosecution case and absence of any
chance of early hearing of the appeal in near future, we
are inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one solvent
surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court subject to condition that the petitioner
shall not indulge in any criminal activities in any manner.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Pravakar
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
