Orissa High Court
Debi Prasad Behera @ vs State Of Odisha on 20 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.44 of 2014
Debi Prasad Behera @ ..... Appellant/
Mantu Petitioner
Mr. Manas Chand,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. P.S. Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
20.08.2025
11. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK
Date: 22-Aug-2025 16:49:17
offences punishable under sections 302/323 of I.P.C. and
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 a further period of two years for the
offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I.
for a period of six months for the offence under section
323 of I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to
run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam
vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2014 in S.T. Case
No.56 of 2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected
as per order dated 08.11.2016 in Misc. Case No.77 of
2016, however, the petitioner has remained in custody
for more than 14 years, which is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the State on perusal of the record.
In the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another -
Vrs.- The State reported in (1990) 3 Orissa
Criminal Reports 427, 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 and in view of the
materials on record, while not inclining to release the
petitioner on bail on merit, but taking into account the
period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody
and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal
in the near future and also the law laid down in the case
of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy (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.
For the above period, let the appellant-petitioner be
released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty
thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court
subject to condition that shall not indulge in any criminal
activities in any manner.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of interim bail.
Learned counsel for the State shall produce the
report from the Inspector in-charge of Gosani Nuagaon
police station regarding the conduct of the petitioner
while on interim bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
12. List this matter in the week commencing from
01.12.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant shall produce the
surrender certificate of the appellant on the next date.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
