Prasanta Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance)
2025 Latest Caselaw 2950 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prasanta Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) on 27 January, 2025

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               CRLA No.105 of 2025

                 Prasanta Kumar Rout                   ....          Appellant

                                         Mr. Abhas Mohanty, Advocate

                                         -versus-

                 State of Odisha (Vigilance)           ....       Respondent

                                              Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
                                          Standing Counsel, Vigilance.

            CORAM:
                         JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                                       ORDER

Order No.                            27.01.2025

                               CRLA No.105 of 2025

   01.      1.       This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement

(video conferencing/physical Mode).

2. Heard.

3. Admit

4. Call for the TCR.

5. List this matter after receipt of the TCR indicating the name of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the top of the brief as well as in the cause list henceforth.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

02. 1. This is an application for bail.

2. Heard Mr. Abhas Mohanty, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under Section-7 of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), in default to undergo further R.I. for six months each for all offences and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh in C.T.R. Case No.11 of 2020.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail during trial and has never misutilized the liberty granted to him. Since there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in near future, the petitioner may be directed to be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Vigilance Department opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court and there is a bleak chance of early hearing of the appeal in near future, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case by the learned trial Court on such terms and conditions as would be deem fit and proper.

8. The I.A. is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

03. 1. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.

2. Heard.

3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, let there be stay operation of the sentence and realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant-petitioner pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

4. The I.A. is disposed of.

5. Issue urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

6. A free copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department.

7. The original certified copy of the judgment be returned to the learned Counsel for the Appellant on substitution of the attested photocopy thereof.

  Narayan                                                         (S.S. Mishra)
                                                                      Judge