Sunil Naik vs State Of Odisha
2026 Latest Caselaw 124 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sunil Naik vs State Of Odisha on 7 January, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             CRLA No.1099 of 2025
            Sunil Naik                  .....         Appellant
                                                           Represented by Adv. -
                                                           Mohan Kumar Sahu

                                           -versus-
            State Of Odisha                      .....                Respondent
                                                           Represented by Adv. -
                                                           Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C.

                                 CORAM:
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                               MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

07.01.2026 Order No. I.A. No.2609 of 2025

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 223 days in presentation of the appeal memo.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant at the outset contended that being aggrieved by judgment dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTSC), Angul in C.T.(S) Case No.27 of 2020/6 of 2021, the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. By virtue of the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted for such commission of an offence punishable under Section 458/ 376(1) of the I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to undergo maximum RI of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Appellant

contended that the Appellant was initially arrested on 05.06.2020 and since that date he is in custody. He further submitted that the Appellant is continuing in custody even after the judgment of conviction was delivered. He further submitted that since the Appellant is in custody, it was difficult on part of the Appellant to arranged funds to engage counsel for preparing and filing of the appeal memo. As a result of which there was a delay of 223 days.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the condonation of the delay on the ground that the delay in this case has not been properly explained

7. Considering such submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, further taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant has been convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to undergo RI for maximum period of 12 years and at the moment he is in custody, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

8. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of.

9. List this matter next week under the heading "for admission".

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

Rubi