Orissa High Court
Raising Ho @ Banara @ vs State Of Odisha on 1 October, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 326 of 2019
Raising Ho @ Banara @ .... Appellant/
Bandara Petitioner
Mr. L. Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Satyabrata Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 01.10.2024
06. I.A. No.808 of 2019
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The Appellant-Petitioner has been convicted under section 302
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for six months more, by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Karanjia vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2019
passed in Sessions Trial Case No.251 of 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner
is in judicial custody since 30.04.2015 and therefore he has remained
in custody for more than nine years. He further submits that, since
paper-book has not been prepared in this case, there is no chance of
early hearing of the appeal in near future. He also submits that the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and therefore
the bail application may be favourably considered.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the
prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 who are the
eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the evidence of the doctor
P.W.18, who has noticed number of injuries/wounds on different
vital parts of the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of
death was due to head injuries and intra-cranial hemorrhage.
5. 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."
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties
and considering the available materials on record, the nature and
gravity of the offence, particularly the post-mortem report finding,
while we are not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on merit,
but taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in
judicial custody since 30.04.2015 which is for more than nine years
and since paper-book has not yet been prepared and there is also no
chance of early hearing of the appeal in near future, and keeping in
view the ratio in the case of Leti (supra), we are inclined to release
the Petitioner on interim bail for a period of three months from the
date of release, and the Petitioner shall surrender before the learned
trial Court immediately on expiry of the three months period.
7. For the above period, let the Appellant-Petitioner namely
Raising Ho @ Banara @ Bandara 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.
8. 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.
9. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
10. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel
for the State.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
1. List this matter in the week commencing from 6th January,
2025.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant shall produce the
surrender certificate of the Appellant on the next date.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
S.K. Copy
Parida
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Oct-2024 12:02:40
