Orissa High Court
Chandra Mohan @ Mohan vs State Of Odisha on 1 October, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.488 of 2018
Chandra Mohan @ Mohan .... Appellants/
Singh &another Petitioners
Mr. L.N. Patel, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Priyabrata 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
13. I.A.No.1400 of 2019
1. This is an application for bail of Appellant-Petitioner No.2
namely Ramji @ Santosh Prasad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners-Appellants and
learned counsel for the State.
3. The Appellants-Petitioners have 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.10000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for six
months u/s.302, IPC, and to undergo S.I. for 15 days for the offence
341, IPC, and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for
three months more for the offence u/s.201, IPC, and to undergo R.I.
for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (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.5000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for three months more for
the offence u/s.25 of the Arms Act, and to undergo R.I. for seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (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.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners confines his prayer for bail
only in respect of Appellant-Petitioner No.2 and submits that
Appellant-Petitioner No.2 namely Ramji @ Santosh Prasad is in
judicial custody since 03.12.2012. He further submits that P.W.2 is
the eye-witness to the occurrence, who has stated specifically that it
was the co-accused Dinesh Mahato who fired gun shot at the
deceased that resulted in his death and the role attributed against
Petitioner No.2 is that he pushed the motorcycle of the deceased, for
which the deceased fell down on the ground.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that, in view of the period
of detention of the Petitioner No.2 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.
6. Learned counsel for the State however opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
7. 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."
8. Considering the submission 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 No.2 on bail on merit,
but taking into account the period of his detention in judicial custody
and since there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in near
future, we are inclined to release Appellant-Petitioner No.2 namely
Ramji @ Santosh Prasad 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.
9. For the above period, let the Appellant-Petitioner No.2 namely
Ramji @ Santosh Prasad be released on interim bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)
each 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.
10. Learned counsel for the State shall obtain and produce the
report from the concerned I.I.C. regarding the conduct of the
Petitioner No.2 while on interim bail.
11. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
12. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel
for the State.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
14. 1. List this matter in the week commencing from 6th January,
2025.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants shall produce the surrender
certificate of the Appellants-Petitioner No.2 on the next date.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
S.K. Parida
Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Oct-2024 12:02:40
