Jogeswar Badaik vs Central Bureau Of
2023 Latest Caselaw 4211 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            CRLA No.444 of 2023

              Jogeswar Badaik                    ....        Appellant/
                                                            Petitioner

                                 Mr. A. Dash, Advocate

                                    -versus-

              Central Bureau of
              Investigation (CBI)
                                                 .... Respondent/
                                                    Opp. Party
                                 Mr. Sarthak Nayak
                                 Special Public Prosecutor
                                 (C.B.I.)

                                  CORAM:
                             JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                   ORDER

Order No.                        24.04.2023
                           CRLA No.444 of 2023

   01.             This    matter   is   taken        up   through   Hybrid

arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).

Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I.

Heard Admit Call for the trial Court records.

List this matter indicating the name of Sarthak // 2 //

Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I in the cause list as well as at the top of the brief.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

I.A. No.971 of 2023

02. This is an application for bail.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I.

The petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120-B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of four months for the offence under section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of four months for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of four months for the offence under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to

// 3 //

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of four months for the offence under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of four months for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.1, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.05 of 2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and he has never misutilized the liberty granted to him and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I., on the other hand, 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, the substantive 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

// 4 //

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.

The I.A. is disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

I.A. No. 970 of 2023

03. 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 judgment and order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.1, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.05 of 2013 pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

The I.A. is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

Sipun