16. 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.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant no.2-petitionerno.2 has been convicted
for the offences punishable under sections 341/302/
201/34 of I.P.C. read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months
for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C., to undergo
imprisonment for S.I. for 15 days, to undergo R.I. for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period
of three months, to undergo R.I. for a period of three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of
further three months for the offence under Section 25 of
the Arms and to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and
all the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda vide judgment and
order dated 24.04.2018 in S.T. Case No.22 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 submitted that
as per the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in I.A. No.1400
of 2024, taking into account the period of detention of the
petitioner no.2 since 03.12.2012 and that there was less
chance of early hearing of the appeal, this Court taking
into account the ratio laid down in the case of Leti @
Jayadeb Roy and another -Vrs.- The State reported
in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal Reports 427 directed the
petitioner no.2 to be released on interim bail for a period
of three months. He further submitted that after availing
the interim bail period, the petitioner no.2 surrendered at
right time.
[ad_1]
Source link