[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gatikrushna Swain vs State Of Odisha on 9 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.31 of 2025
Gatikrushna Swain .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Harmohan Dhal, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Advocate
(for the informant)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.02.2026
(Hybrid mode)
15. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for
commission of the offences punishable under sections
109/147/148/341/427/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code 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 two years for the offence under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under
section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of three
years for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code,
S.I. for a period of one month for the offence under Section 341 of
the Indian Penal Code R.I. for a period of two years for the offence
under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of
four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in
default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of three months for the
offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- P.O., D.C., O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack
in Sessions Trial Case No.129 of 2021.
4. Vide order dated 18.08.2025, the appellant-petitioner was
granted interim bail for a period of three months. While granting
interim bail, following observations was made by the coordinate
Bench of this Court, which reads as under:-
"Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the eye witnesses have not spoken about
the presence of the petitioner at the spot, however, they
deposed that other accused persons directly participated in the
assault of the deceased stated that the petitioner abetted them
to commit the crime. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner was on bail during trial and there is no allegation of
misutilization his liberty and after the pronouncement of the
judgment on 08.11.2024, the petitioner has been taken into
judicial custody. Learned counsel further submits that the
abetment part as deposed by the eye witnesses to the
occurrence is doubtful on the face of record. Since there is no
chance of early hearing of appeal in the near future as it is the
appeal in the year 2025, the bail application of the petitioner
may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the report received
from the Inspector in-charge of Banki police station dated
15.07.2025, which shows that the conduct of the petitioner
while he was on bail from 24.12.2020 to 07.11.2024 was not
good, however, learned counsel for the State fairly submits
that no Such report about the conduct of the petitioner has
been lodged during the period in question.
Learned counsel for the State submits that there is threat to the
family of the deceased and the prosecution witnesses in case
the petitioner is released on bail, which would be evident from
the report submitted by the Inspector in-charge of Banki police
station. The report submitted by the learned counsel for the
State is taken on record.
We find from the evidence on record the eye witnesses
supported the prosecution case and also named the petitioner
as the abettor of the crime. During trial the petitioner was on
bail, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that he has
influenced the witnesses, rather the witnesses have deposed
against him."
5. The appellant availed the interim bail and after expiry of
the interim bail period, surrendered before the learned trial Court.
We sought for a report from the I.I.C., Banki P.S. regarding the
conduct of the appellant during the interim bail period. The I.I.C.,
Banki P.S. has submitted a report dated 04.02.2026, inter alia,
stating that during the period of interim bail, nothing adverse
noticed against the appellant and the situation in the locality is
normal and no law and order situation is anticipated.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the custody
certificate of the appellant received from the Superintendent of
Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar, which indicates that the appellant
remained in custody for eight months three days as on 15.05.2025
after the conviction.
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant by relying upon the aforementioned report furnished by
the I.I.C., Banki P.S. submitted that the appellant is entitled to
grant of regular bail pending the appeal. He further submits that
during the entire trial period, the appellant had remained on bail.
7. Mr. Ragada, learned counsel for the informant and Ms.
Devi, learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the
bail plea of the appellant and taken us to the evidence of P.Ws.2, 6,
7 and 14. They have read out the oral evidence in extenso and also
relied upon Ext. P/26 and Ext. P/35.
8. Reading of the evidence of all the witnesses reveals that all
the witnesses in unison have directly implicated the present
appellant in the crime. It appears from the evidence that on the
basis of the instigation of the present appellant, the crime has been
committed. This is a case involving killing of the deceased,
namely, Nanda @ Gobinda Behera brutally by assault and hurling
bomb. The doctor (P.W.7) has found ten injuries in the body of the
deceased and also opined that the cause of death is due to severe
injury to vital organs with severe hemorrhage leading to
hemorrhagic shock due to blast that led to coma and subsequent
death.
9. Taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence
indicating the involvement of the present appellant, we are not
inclined to suspend the sentence awarded against him at this stage.
However, liberty is granted to the appellant to renew the bail plea
if the appeal is not heard within a period of six months hence.
10. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
Digitally Signed (Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Designation: Senior Stenographer Judge
Reason: Authentication
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Feb-2026 15:41:08
