Jibandeep Rout vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 5743 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               CRLA No. 159 of 2021

                 Jibandeep Rout                      ....         Appellant

                                          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 appellant undertakes to remove the defect as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within eight weeks.

Heard.

Admit.

Call for the Trial Court Record.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

I.A. No.305 of 2021

04. Heard.

There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant- petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.

// 2 //

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 appellant-petitioner has 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 for the offence under section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the OPID Act, 2011 and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) on each count respectively, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one year on each count and he is 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.

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the appellant is in judicial custody since 20.04.2017 and as such, out of seven years of substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial

// 3 //

Court, the appellant has already undergone half of the substantive sentence i.e., more than four 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 his favour and therefore, the bail application of the appellant 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 appellant, the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the period already undergone by the appellant 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 appellant-petitioner be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) 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

// 4 //

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