Orissa High Court
Bhalmoji Purusottam vs State Of Odisha on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.473 of 2021
Bhalmoji Purusottam .... Appellant
Ms.A.Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Mr.S.K. Das, Standing Counsel
(Vig.)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 23.09.2021
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Perused the clarification report of the learned Special
Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore in connection with G.R. Case
No.8/1987(V)/ T.R. Case No. 04/2007 as per order dated
16.09.2021. In the report, the learned Special Judge has
clarified that the order of default sentence and substantive
sentences are to run concurrently for all the convicts and
that the paragraphs dealing with sentence in pages 93 and
94 should be read as one paragraph.
In view of such clarification, it becomes clear that the
appellant Bhalmoji Purusottam, co-accused Jogindernath
Swain, Chittaranjan Samal, Bidyadhar Jena, Bhagaban
Golari and Kulamani Barik have been directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and
// 2 //
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each on each
count for the offences under sections 409, 467, 471, 477-
A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2)
read with section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and the substantive sentences are to
run concurrently and each of the aforesaid accused persons
including the appellant have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months
for each default of payment of fine as awarded for the
aforesaid offence.
This order should be brought to the notice of the
Court concerned at the time of hearing of this appeal in
future.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court records.
Copy of the order be communicated to the learned
trial Court, who shall incorporate the aforesaid clarification
on sentence of the appellant and other co-accused persons
in the order sheet of the record before sending it to this
Court.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No. 863 of 2021
03. This is an application for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
// 3 //
petitioner was on bail during trial and he never misutilized the
liberty granted to him. He was also released on interim bail by
the learned trial Court after conviction.
Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department opposed
the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the prosecution during trial and the sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court and absence of chance of
early hearing of the appeal in the near future, I am inclined to
release the petitioner on bail.
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.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No. 884 of 2021
04. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
Heard.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, let there be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed on the appellant-petitioner pursuant to the
impugned judgment pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 4 //
I.A. No. 862 of 2021
05. This is an application for stay of operation of the
impugned judgment.
Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department seeks some time to file objection to this petition.
Put up this matter after the ensuing Puja vacation.
Objection, if any, may be filed in the meantime.
Issue urgent certified copy 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
PKSahoo
