Orissa High Court
Lulu @ Muktikanta vs State Of Odisha on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.265 of 2019
Lulu @ Muktikanta .... Appellant/
Pradhan Petitioner
Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ....
Respondent/
Opp.Party
Mr.Arupananda Das
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 08.12.2022
10. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Video
Conferencing/Physical Mode).
This is an application for bail.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 342, 366A, 376(2)(i)(n)/34 of the Indian Penal Code
read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) and in default, to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a further period of
one month for the offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal
Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the
offence under section 366A of Indian Penal Code and to
// 2 //
undergo to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months for the offence under section 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian
Penal Code and in view of section 42 of the POCSO Act, no
separate sentence has been imposed under section 6 of the
POCSO Act and all the substantive sentences were directed to
run consecutively by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum-
Sessions Judge, Balasore vide judgment and order dated
26.02.2019 in Special Case No.456 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.08.2016 and the bail
application of the petitioner was rejected on merit in I.A. No. 714
of 2019 as per order dated 10.12.2020 and out of ten years of
substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, the
petitioner has already undergone more than six years and three
months of sentence. It is further submitted that no paper book has
been prepared, there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal
in the near future and balance of convenience is in his favour and
therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favouraly
reconsidered.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the custody
certificate obtained from the Superintendent, District Jail,
Balasore dated 17.10.2022, which indicates that by that time, the
custody period of the petitioner was 2211 days.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respective parties, the substantive sentence imposed by
the learned trial Court, the period of detention of the petitioner in
// 3 //
judicial custody and absence of any chance of early hearing of
the appeal in the near future, I am inclined to reconsider the
prayer for bail and direct release of 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 with such
terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper including the conditions that the petitioner shall not
indulge in any criminal activities and shall not come in contact
with the victim or any of the prosecution witnesses. Violation of
any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
PKSahoo
