Orissa High Court
Bijay Kumar Sethy vs State Of Odisha on 20 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.25 of 2022
Bijay Kumar Sethy ..... Appellant/
Petitioner
Ms. Anima Kumar Dei,
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
Order No.
20.09.2025
04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Signature Not Heard.
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Perused the impugned judgment.
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Sep-2025 10:48:33
offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a period of one year by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Karanjia vide judgment and order dated
11.10.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.88 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.02.2017 and the
petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased Sukanti
Sethi and P.W.14 is the minor child witness to the
occurrence and he has stated that the petitioner dealt a
single blow with a wooden rectangular bar on the head of
the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the
doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, has
not been examined. However, the post mortem
examination report has been proved through the I.O. and
has been marked as Ex.17, which indicates that the
cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock on
account of injury to the vital organ like brain. Learned
counsel further submits that even though paper book has
been prepared, 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, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
P.W.2, who also stated about the assault on the
deceased by the petitioner.
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 for more than eight years
and six months 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-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 with such terms and conditions as the
learned Court may deem just and proper.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Sipun/Rajesh
