Orissa High Court
Laxmipriya Rout vs State Of Odisha on 30 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 158 of 2021
1. Laxmipriya Rout
2. Mitanjali Rout
3. Sanjib Rout
4. Manoj Lenka .... Appellants
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Mr. J.P. Patra,
Special Counsel for OPID Act
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
30.04.2021
03. This matter is taken up by video conferencing
mode.
Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to
remove the defect no. 9(a) as pointed out by the
Stamp Reporter immediately after the ensuing
Summer Vacation.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the Trial Court Record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 2 //
I.A. No.303 of 2021
04. Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellants-
petitioners till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.304 of 2021
05. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellants-petitioners have been convicted
under section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with
section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011 and sections 4 and 5 of
the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)
Act, 1978 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years
each for the offence under section 420/34 of Indian Penal
Code read with section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011 and all of
them were directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees
five lakhs) each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one
year on each count and they were also sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years each for each of the offences
under sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and all the
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently
by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (under
OPID Act), Cuttack in C.T. Case No.06 of 2016.
// 3 //
Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners
submits that the appellants are in judicial custody since
28.04.2016 and as such out of seven years of
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court, the appellants have already undergone half of
the substantive sentence i.e., more than five years. He
further submits that there is no chance of early hearing
of appeal in the near future and the balance of
convenience is in their favour and therefore, the bail
application of the appellants may be favourably
considered.
Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Special Counsel for the
OPID Act appearing for the State of Orissa, on the other
hand, opposed the prayer for bail.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for
the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced
in the trial Court against the appellants, the substantive
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the period
already undergone by the appellants in judicial custody
and absence of any chance of early hearing of the
appeal in the near future, the prayer for bail is allowed.
Let the appellants-petitioners be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
// 4 //
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19
situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties
may utilize a printout of the order available in the High
Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to
attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner
prescribed vide Court's Notice No. 4587 dated 25th
March 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798
dated 15th April 2021.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
P
