Nityananda Behera vs State Of Odisha(Vig.)
2021 Latest Caselaw 9460 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 CRLA No. 450 of 2021

                 Nityananda Behera                  ....        Appellant

                                      Mohini Sahoo, Advocate

                                    -versus-
                 State of Odisha(Vig.)       ....            Respondent

                                      Mr. S.K. Das,
                                      Standing Counsel (Vig.)
                                           CORAM:

                                 JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                       ORDER

Order No. 09.09.2021

02. 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.821 of 2021

03. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard Ms. Mohini Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

// 2 //

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under section 7 and section 13(1)(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offence under section 7 of 1988 Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-(five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of 1988 Act. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh in C.T.R. No. 21/111 of 2010-2016. Perused the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant 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 appellant and therefore, the bail application of the appellant 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, nature of evidence available on record and further taking into account the period of

// 3 //

sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future and the fact that the appellant 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 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.820 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 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

p