Orissa High Court
Duryodhan Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha on 30 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 117 of 2021
1. Duryodhan Bhuyan
2. Bhagyabati Rout .... Appellants
Mr. U.C. Mishra, 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
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
03.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the Trial Court Record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.205 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
// 2 //
I.A. No.206 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 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 and
each of them were directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-
(rupees ten lakhs), in default, to undergo further R.I. for one
year and they were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two
years 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 the OPID Act, Cuttack in C.T. Case No.2 of 2017.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the appellants are in judicial custody since
14.01.2017 and as such, they have already undergone more
than half of the substantive sentence imposed by the learned
trial Court and appellant no.1 Duryodhan Bhuyan was
released on interim bail for a period of ten days only on the
ground of death of his mother and after availing the interim
bail, he surrendered at right time and the appellant no.2 has
never been released on bail. He further submits that the
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.
// 3 //
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. stands disposed of.
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
