Orissa High Court
Hutasan Yadav vs State Of Odisha on 21 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.127 of 2023
Hutasan Yadav .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. P.P. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. J.P. Patra
Special Counsel (OPID)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 21.02.2023
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court record.
Learned counsel for the appellant files the copies of
the interim applications for bail and stay realization of
fine after serving copies thereof on Mr. J.P. Patra,
learned Special Counsel appearing for the State of
Odisha in O.P.I.D. Act matters.
Let the Registry register the interim applications.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
// 2 //
I.A. No. of 2023
02. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the
O.P.I.D. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period
of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (rupees
fifty thousand), in default, to further undergo R.I. for a
period of one month for the offence under section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of seven years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs), in
default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of six
months for the offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D.
Act and the Financial Establishment i.e. the PICL Multi
State Credit Co-operative Society Limited shall pay a fine
of Rs.60,00,000/- (rupees sixty lakhs), in default, to
further undergo R.I. for a period of one year and all the
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently
by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under
O.P.I.D. Act, Sambalpur in G.R. Case No.510/2 of 2019.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
18.05.2019 and thus, out of seven years of substantive
sentence, he has remained in custody for seven years
and nine months and there is no chance of early hearing
// 3 //
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.
Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Special Counsel appearing for
the State of Odisha in O.P.I.D. Act matters opposed the
prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for
the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced
during the trial, the substantive sentence imposed by the
learned trial Court, the period already undergone by the
petitioner in judicial custody 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.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No. of 2023
03. Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-
// 4 //
petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
RKM
