Orissa High Court
Sailendra Narayan Panda vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.629 of 2021
Sailendra Narayan Panda .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Abhinash Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. S.K. Das,
Addl. Standing Counsel (Vig.)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 22.11.2021
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 has already filed
his appearance memo in the case. Let the registry place
the appearance memo on record. The name of Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department shall be indicated in the cause list henceforth.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the Trial Court Record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 2 //
I.A. No.1136 of 2021
This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for
02.
grant of bail.
Heard Mr. Abhinash Mohanty, 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 one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in
default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three
months for the offence under section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)
of the P.C. Act, 1988 and R.I. for a period of six months
and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (five thousand), in default,
to undergo R.I. for a further period of one month for the
offence under section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and both the
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently
by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in
C.T.R. No. 46 of 2006.
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 on surrendering 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. 1137 of 2021
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
03.
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-
petitioner till 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 Department.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 4 //
I.A. No.1072 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
