Orissa High Court
Madhusudan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 19 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.135 of 2017
1. Madhusudan Pradhan
2. Pravati Pradhan ..... Appellants/
Petitioners
Mr. Udipta Kumar Panda,
Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Gokulananda Sahoo,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
19.09.2025
Order No.
09. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 20-Sep-2025 16:47:48
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail of appellant no.1 Madhusudan Pradhan.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Both the appellants-petitioners have been convicted
for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) each, in
default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two
months each by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Padampur vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2016
passed in C.T. Case No.77/60 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.11.2012 and he
was never released on bail during trial and the appellant
no.2 Pravati Pradhan has been directed to be released on
bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018. Learned
counsel further submits that the prosecution case is that,
the petitioner assaulted the deceased, who was his
brother by means of an axe, as a result of which, he
died. Learned counsel further submits that since paper
book has not been prepared as yet, there is no chance of
early hearing of the appeal in the near future and
therefore, the bail application of petitioner may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail mainly on the ground that
P.W.5, the widow of the deceased is an eye witnesses to
the occurrence and her version is getting corroboration
from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.17), who conducted
the post mortem examination.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
available on record, the period of detention of the
petitioner in judicial custody and absence of any chance
of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, we are
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the appellant no.1 Madhusudan Pradhan 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 with such terms
and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper including the conditions that the petitioner shall
not indulge in any criminal activities and shall not try to
come in contact with the family members of the deceased
in any manner.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
(P.T.O)
10. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed on the appellant-petitioner no.1 Madhusudan
Pradhan by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Padampur
vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 passed in C.T. Case
No.77/60 of 2013 pending disposal of the criminal
appeal.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
sipun
