Orissa High Court
Gajendra Digal vs State Of Odisha on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.663 of 2021
Gajendra Digal .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Abhisek Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
(Vigilance) Opp. Party
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 29.11.2021
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.1192 of 2021
02. This is an application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard Mr. Abhisek Pradhan, learned counsel for
// 2 //
the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) punishable under
section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereafter 'P.C. Act') and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
undergo further R.I. for a period of six months for the
offence under section 7 of the P.C. Act and no
separate sentence under section 13(2) of the P.C. Act
has been imposed as per requirements of section 71
of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (Vigilance),
Phulbani in G.R. No.16 of 2017(V) (T.R. No.01 of
2019).
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has never
misutilised his liberty and the substantive sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court against the
petitioner is for three years and after conviction, he
has also been released on bail by the learned trial
Court and there are good chances of success in the
appeal and there is no chance of early hearing of
appeal in the near future and balance of convenience
// 3 //
is in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the bail
application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during trial, the
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court, the fact that the petitioner was on bail during
trial and there is no allegation of misutilization of his
liberty while on bail 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 on surrendering be
released on bail pending disposal of the appeal on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty
thousand) with two local 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.1193 of 2021
03. Heard.
// 4 //
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.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
