Orissa High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 10 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1082 of 2022
Vinod Kumar .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr.Devashis Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Respondent/
Opp.Party
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 10.01.2023
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Defect as pointed out by the S.R. is removed as
authentication fees of Rs.6/- has been filed. The memo
filed to that effect in Court today is taken on record.
Heard.
Admit.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that the
co-accused persons who were convicted with the
appellant preferred separate criminal appeals i.e., CRLA
No. 1000 of 2022 and CRLA No.1050 of 2022 and in both
// 2 //
the matters, the trial Court record has been called for. If
the trial Court record is not available in those two cases,
the same be called for and the matter be listed
henceforth with the trial Court record along with
aforesaid two criminal appeals.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.2057 of 2022
02. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
sections 467/468/471/34/120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of three years on each count
and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand)
each on each count, in default of payment of fine on
each count, to undergo further R.I. for a period of six
months each for the offences under sections
467/468/471/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/- on each count and in default to
undergo R.I. for six months more for the offences under
sections section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and all the sentences
were directed to run concurrently by the learned Special
Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.13 of
// 3 //
2013.
Perused the impugned judgment.
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 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 on surrendering 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.
// 4 //
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.2056 of 2022
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.
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
