Orissa High Court
Pradeep Santi vs State Of Odisha on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.600 of 2021
Pradeep Santi .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Suman Modi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. S.K. Das,
Addl. Standing Counsel (Vig.)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 01.11.2021
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel
for the Vigilance Department submits that he will file
the appearance memo by tomorrow (02.10.2021).
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the Trial Court Record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.1075 of 2021
This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
02.
for grant of bail.
// 2 //
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the
P.C. Act and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of four years 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
13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988
and R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.5000/- (five thousand), in default, to undergo
R.I. for a further period of three months for the
offence under section 7 of the P.C. Act and both the
substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Keonjhar in V.G.R. Case No. 06 of 2014 (T.R. No.13
of 2014).
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has never
misutilised his liberty and there is no chance of early
hearing of appeal in the near future and the balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner and
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be
favourably considered.
// 3 //
Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department
opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, nature of evidence available
on record and taking into account the period of
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and
absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal
in near future and the fact that the petitioner was on
bail during trial, the prayer for bail is allowed.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing a 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.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No. 1076 of 2021
03 There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-
petitioner pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
A free copy of the order be handed over to the
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
// 4 //
Department.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.1077 of 2021
04. This is an application for stay of order of
conviction.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing
Counsel for the Vigilance Department submits that
he intends to file an objection to such application.
As prayed, for list this matter four weeks
after.
Objection, if any to the interim application,
be filed in the meantime.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
P
