Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha on 7 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.517 of 2021
Pradeep Kumar Pradhan .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. R.N. Rout, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
(Vigilance) Opp. Party
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 07.10.2021
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that
he has filed the appearance memo on 04.10.2021.
The Registry shall place the appearance memo
on record.
The name of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department be
reflected in the cause list as well as at the top of the
brief.
Heard.
// 2 //
Admit.
Call for the trial Court record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.938 of 2021
03. This is an application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under section 13(1)(d) punishable under section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereafter 'P.C. Act') read with section 7 of the P.C.
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two
years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further
R.I. for a period of four months for the offence under
section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act punishable under
section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and R.I. for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees
three thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I.
for a 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), Balasore in T.R.
// 3 //
No.12 of 2012.
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 two years and six months 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 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 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
// 4 //
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.937 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.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
