Orissa High Court
Muralidhar Prusty vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1083 of 2023
Muralidhar Prusty .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Respondent/
Opp.Party
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2023
CRLA No.1083 of 2023
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel
for the Vigilance Department submitted that he has
received the copy of the appeal memo along with the
copies of the impugned judgment and interim application.
He undertakes to file his appearance memo by end of
November 2023.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court record.
List this matter indicating the name of Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
// 2 //
Department in the cause list as well as at the top of the
brief after receipt of the trial court record.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
I.A. No.2371 of 2023
02. This is an application for bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department.
The appellant-petitioner Muralidhar Prusty has been
convicted for the offence under section 7/13(2) read
with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
(for short, 'P.C. Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-
(rupees twenty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for
a further period of six months for the offence under
section 7 the P.C. Act and to undergo R.I. for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-(rupees
twenty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a
further period of six months for the offence under
section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act
and both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Dhenkanal in V.G.R. Case No.34 of 2023/DKL T.R. No.12
// 3 //
of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was on bail during trial and 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 counsel for the Vigilance Department
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 sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court, the fact that the
petitioner was on bail during trial 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
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.2372 of 2023
03. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
// 4 //
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 18.09.2006
passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Dhenkanal in V.G.R. Case No.34 of 2023/DKL T.R. No.12
of 2017 pending disposal of the criminal appeal.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the learned
counsel for the Vigilance Department.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
PKSahoo
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 10-Oct-2023 10:35:42
