Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) on 25 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1019 of 2023
Saroj Kumar Das .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Deba Prasad Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Respondent /
Opp. Party
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 25.09.2023
CRLA No.1019 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
applications. He undertakes to files his appearance memo
by the end of November 2023.
Heard.
Admit.
Call for the trial Court records.
List this matter indicating the name of Mr. Sanjay
// 2 //
Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
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.2194 of 2023
02. This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department.
The appellant-petitioner Saroj Kumar Das has been
convicted for the offence under section 13(2) read with
section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (for short, 'P.C. Act') and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a further period of two months for the
offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d)
the P.C. Act and no separate sentence has been
awarded for the offence under section 7 of the P.C. Act
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge
(Vigilance), Angul in T.R. Case No.16 of 2018/T.R.
No.115/2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was on bail during trial and has never
// 3 //
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.2195 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
// 4 //
pursuant to the judgment and order dated 28.08.2023
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum-
Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul in T.R. Case No.16 of
2018/T.R. No.115/2019 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
sipun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Sep-2023 17:17:15
