Orissa High Court
Dharani Munda vs State Of Odisha on 5 April, 2025
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 720 of 2019
Dharani Munda .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Ms. B.L. Tripathy, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 05.04.2025
11. I.A. No. 527 of 2025
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant
and learned counsel for the State.
3. 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.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to suffer
further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
six months by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar
vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2019 passed in S.T
Case No.56/114 of 2015.
4. It appears that the Petitioner was granted interim
bail for a period of three months vide order dated
29.07.2024 in I.A. No.1612 of 2019.
5. The Petitioner has surrendered at right time after
availing the interim bail period as it appears from the
report furnished by the learned trial Court dated
20.12.2024. Learned counsel further submitted that there
are good chances of success in the appeal and balance of
convenience is in the favour of the Appellant and
therefore, the bail application may be favorably
considered.
6. Learned counsel for the State has produced the
report dated 03.11.2024 received from the IIC, Telkoi
P.S., Keonjhar which indicates that during the interim bail
period, the Petitioner was staying at his village Rugudi in
the house of Nima Munda and spent normal life and he
maintained his livelihood as daily basis labour which is
taken on record. No adverse report has come against him.
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. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective
parties and taking into account the period of detention in
judicial custody since 04.05.2015 and keeping in view the
ratio laid down 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.
9. 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.
10. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of interim bail.
11. Learned counsel for the State shall produce the
report from the concerned I.I.C. regarding the conduct of
the Petitioner while on interim bail so also produce the
surrender certificate of the Petitioner from the concerned
authority by the next date.
12. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
13. A free copy of the order be handed over to the
learned counsel for the State.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
12. 1. List this matter in the week commencing from
07.07.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant shall produce the
surrender certificate of the Appellant on the next date.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
A.K. Pradhan/ Bijay
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 07-Apr-2025 15:56:29
