Orissa High Court
Dinesh Mahato vs State Of Odisha on 6 November, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.487 of 2018
Dinesh Mahato .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 06.11.2024
I.A. No.2365 of 2024
10. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for bail of appellant-petitioner
Dinesh Mahato.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant
and learned counsel for the State.
The appellant-petitioner along with others has
been convicted under sections 341/302/201/34, IPC read
with sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act and are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for six months under section 302, IPC and
to undergo S.I. for 15 days for the offence under section
341, IPC and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for three months more for the offence
under section 201, IPC and to undergo R.I. for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for three months
more and to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to
undergo R.I. for three months more for the offence
under section 25 of the Arms Act and to undergo R.I. for
seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for three months
more for the offence under section 27 of Arms Act vide
judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No.22
of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.12.2012 and
the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Chandra
Mohan @ Mohan Singh in CRLA No. 488 of 2018 has been
granted interim bail for a period of three months as per
order dated 01.10.2024 passed in I.A. No. 1400 of 2019.
Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the
period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody
and since paper-book has not been prepared yet and
there is less chance of early hearing of the appeal in the
near future, the petitioner's prayer for bail may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, however, opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
In the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another
-Vrs.- The State reported in (1990) 3 Orissa
Criminal Reports 427, wherein it is held as follows:-
"21. Stage has reached to express our view on
the question whether the convicts who have
been in jail for three years because of non-
disposal of their appeals could claim their
release on bail with the aid of Art.21 of the
Constitution? According to us, Art.21 demands
that the cases of such convicts have to be
liberally viewed while examining the question
of their release on bail and in run-of-mill cases
enlargement on bail in the first instance for a
temporary period of say three months for
cogent personal reasons may not be refused.
We have mentioned about temporary release
in the first instance, to enable all concerned to
watch the performance of the convict during
the interregnum. If it would be found that he
has misused the liberty, the period of his
release on bail would not be enlarged. If,
however, there be nothing against the convict,
he would merit release on bail till the disposal
of his appeal. Of course, for special reasons,
which would include the nature of the crime
and the antecedents of the convict, the benefit
of release on bail even for a temporary period
may be denied. The types of cases in which
this benefit should be denied cannot be laid
down exhaustively but should be akin to those
about which reference has been made earlier.
This apart, if the character and antecedent of
the convict be such as would give ground to
believe that his release on bail may not be
safe, he too may be denied the protective
shield of Art.21."
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence
adduced by the eye-witnesses to the occurrence so also
the post-mortem report, although we are not inclined to
release the petitioner on bail on merit, but taking into
account the period of his detention in judicial custody,
release of the co-accused persons on interim bail and
since there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in
near future, we are inclined to release appellant-
petitioner on interim bail for a period of three months
from the date of release and he shall surrender before
the learned trial Court immediately on expiry of the three
months period.
For the above period, let the appellant-petitioner
be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case 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
subject to condition that he shall not indulge in any
criminal activities in any manner whatsoever.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of interim bail.
Learned counsel for the State shall obtain and
produce the report from the concerned I.I.C. regarding
the conduct of the Petitioner while on interim bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
A free copy of the order be handed over to the
learned counsel for the State.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
11. List this matter in the week commencing from 10th
February, 2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant shall file the
surrender certificate of the appellant by the next date.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
PKSahoo/Rajesh Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Nov-2024 17:01:00
