[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Debahari Behera vs State Of Odisha on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.62 of 2015
Debahari Behera .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, Amicus Curiae
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.04.2026
(Hybrid mode)
I.A. No.46 of 2026
05. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred), in default to undergo
R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under
Section 302 of I.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge,
Phulbani in Sessions Trial No.72 of 2012.
4. The Jail Criminal Appeal has been pending
since 2015. The learned Amicus Curiae, who was
appointed at the time of admission of the appeal, did
not file any application seeking suspension of
sentence. Subsequently, Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4,
learned counsel, was appointed by this Court in place
of the earlier Amicus Curiae. Upon such appointment,
Mr. Mishra has filed I.A. No.46 of 2026 seeking grant
of bail and I.A. No.47 of 2026 seeking stay of
realization of fine.
5. Vide order dated 20.02.2026, learned counsel
for the State was directed to obtain instruction
regarding the custody certificate, criminal antecedents
and the jail conduct of the appellant-petitioner.
Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the State
produced a report received from the I.I.C., Phulbani
Sadar P.S., Phulbani, which indicates that the
appellant has no criminal antecedent. She has also
produced the custody certificate received from the
Superintendent Circle Jail, Phulbani, which indicates
that the appellant has already undergone custody for a
period of fifteen years two months four days as on
20.03.2026 and the jail conduct of the appellant is
satisfactory.
6. P.W.2 is the informant in the present case. She
has deposed that the parental uncle of the appellant
informed her that the appellant had entered the house
of the deceased and assaulted him, causing his death.
On the following morning, she proceeded to the police
station and lodged the report.
P.Ws.3 and 4 have been examined by the
prosecution as an eye witnesses. Both of them have
stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 5.00
P.M., while the deceased was tying the goat inside his
house, the accused entered his house armed with a
lathi and inflicted two to three blows on the deceased.
Thereafter, the accused went and closed the door from
outside. Subsequently, P.W.3 along with her niece and
P.W.2 saw through the entrance door that the
deceased was lying in a pool of blood.
P.W.4 is the child witness, has also supported
the case of P.W.3. P.W.11, the doctor, who conducted
the postmortem examination, has supported the
prosecution case.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellant has pointed out the glaring
contradictions in the evidence of the eye witnesses, the
doctor and the other witnesses and submitted that the
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is not
stand the scrutiny of law, if the evidences are
appreciated in right prospective.
8. On the contrary, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State stated that
for the purpose of bail at this stage, the evidence of
P.Ws.3, 4 and P.W.11 is sufficient to establish the case
of the prosecution.
9. We have taken into consideration the
submission made by both the counsels and perused
the evidence on record.
10. Regard being had to the nature of evidence,
period of custody undergone by the appellant to be
more than fifteen years and the fact that the appeal
has been pending since 2015 and there is no
likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future,
we are inclined to release the appellant on bail.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail in
the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) with one local
solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court subject to condition that he
shall not indulge in any criminal activities in any
manner and any other condition to be imposed by the
learned trial court as deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of interim bail.
11. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per
rules.
12. Let a copy of the order be communicated by the
Registrar (Judicial) to the concerned Jail
Superintendent and also to the learned Sessions Judge,
Phulbani by e-mail for compliance.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
06. 1. This is an application for stay of realization of
fine.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, let there by stay of
realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial
Court on the appellant-petitioner pending disposal of
the Jail Criminal Appeal.
4. The I.A. is disposed of.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
