Orissa High Court
Sarat Malik vs State Of Odisha on 6 January, 2025
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.08 of 2020
Sarat Malik ..... Appellant/Petitioner
Mr.Chittaranjan Sahoo,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/Opp. Party
Mr. J. Nayak
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No. ORDER
06.01.2025
I.A. No. 264 of 2024
09. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for grant of bail.
The appellant-petitioner Sarat Malik 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of six months by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Bhadrak vide Judgment and order dated
18.11.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 26/164 of 2016.
The petitioner was granted interim bail for a period
of three months by this Court vide order dated
23.07.2024 passed in I.A. No.21 of 2021 taking into
account his period of detention in judicial custody and
also keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case of
Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another -Vrs.- The State
reported in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal Reports 427.
After availing the interim bail, the petitioner has
surrendered before the learned trial Court on time.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the
report dated 05.01.2025 received from the Officer in-
charge of Dhusuri police station in the district of
Bhadrak, which reveals that during the interim bail
period, the petitioner was residing at his native village in
a peaceful manner and his conduct was good and no
adverse report was received against him. The report is
taken on record.
In the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy (supra), it has
been 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, since the petitioner
has surrendered before the learned trial Court after
availing the interim bail period and has not misutilized
the liberty while on interim bail and further taking into
account the period of detention of the petitioner in
judicial custody and the fact that the paper book has not
been prepared and there is no chance of hearing of the
appeal in the near future, keeping in view the ratio laid
down in the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy (supra), we
are inclined to release the petitioner on.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
PKSahoo
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
