Orissa High Court
Swosti Ranjan Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha on 7 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.86 of 2023
Swosti Ranjan Mohapatra .... Appellant
Mrs. Diptirekha Nanda,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
(Vigilance)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 07.02.2023
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Vigilance Department submitted that he has
received the copy of the appeal memo along with the
impugned judgment and interim applications for bail and stay
realization of fine and he will file his appearance memo by
end of this month.
In case such appearance memo is filed, the same be
taken on record and the name of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department shall
be reflected in the cause list as well as at the top of the brief.
Heard.
// 2 //
Admit.
Call for the trial Court record.
It is further submitted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department that
co-accused persons have faced trial along with the appellant
and convicted, have preferred separate criminal appeals i.e.
CRLA No.1226 of 2022, CRLA No.30 of 2023, CRLA No.40 of
2023, CRLA No.71 of 2023 and CRLA No.87 of 2023 and in
those criminal appeals, trial Court record has also been called
for.
The Registry shall verify the availability of trial Court
record in the aforesaid criminal appeals and if it is not
available, then trial Court record shall be called for.
In view of such submission, this matter be listed along
with CRLA No.1226 of 2022, CRLA No.30 of 2023, CRLA
No.40 of 2023, CRLA No.71 of 2023 and CRLA No.87 of 2023
all times in future.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.179 of 2023
02. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner Swosti Ranjan Mohapatra
along with others has been convicted under section 13(2)
read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
// 3 //
Act 1988 and under sections 420/468/471/120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty
thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of
six months for the under section 13(2) read with section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, R.I. for a
period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(rupees
fifty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further
period of six months for the under section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand), in default, to undergo
R.I. for a further period of six months for the under section
468 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months for
the under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a
period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a
further period of six months for the under section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to
run concurrently by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.09 of 2009.
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 three
years 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
// 4 //
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 be 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.180 of 2023
03. 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.
// 5 //
A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
