Orissa High Court
Rabindra Kumar Ojha vs State Of Odisha on 28 July, 2025
Author: S.K.Sahoo
Bench: S.K.Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.
No.151 of 2018
Rabindra Kumar Ojha
and others ..... Appellants/
Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Samantray,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 28.07.2025
15. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for bail of appellant no.2 (Tipu
@ Tapan Kumar Ojha).
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellants-petitioners
appellant have been convicted for
the offences punishable under sections 302/506/34
/34 of the
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-
Date: 29-Jul-2025 17:08:41
(rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence under section
302 of Indian
ndian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year for the offence under section
506 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences were
directed to run concurrently by the learned 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment and order dated
17.01.2018 in Sessions Trial Case No.259 of 2013.
As per the order dated 11.07.2025, learned counsel
for the State has produced the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which shows that the petitioner has undergone
fifteen years and five months of sentence,
nce, which includes
the earned remission. The petitioner was also directed to
be released on interim bail as per the order dated
07.02.2020 passed in I.A. No.2070 of 2019 and he was
released from custody on 13.02.2020 and surrendered on
24.03.2020. Learned counsel for the State has also
produced the written
written instruction dated 25.07.2025
received from the I.I.C., Salipur police station,
station which
indicates that during interim bail period, the petitioner is
not involving in any criminal cases and the petitioner wa
was
staying at his native village Jagannathpur. Both the
reports produced by the learned counsel for the State are
taken on record.
Learned counsel for the State however submits that
on merit, the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected vide order
rder dated 02.08.2019 taking into account
the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 5.
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:
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
non-
disposal of their appeals could claim their
release on bail with the aid of Art.21 of the
Constitution? According to us, Ar
Art.21
t.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
run-of-mill
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
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,
onvict, 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,
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
nsel for the respective
respective parties and since earlier the bail
application of the petitioner has
ha been rejected on merit on
account the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to
5, 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
tioner 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
appellant-petitioner
petitioner
no.2 (Tipu @ Tapan Kumar Ojha) be released on interim
bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/-(rupees
(rupees twenty thousand) with one local
solvent surety 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.
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
in-charge of Salipur 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
16. List this matter in the week commencing from
10.11.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant shall produce the
surrender certificate of the appellant no.2 (Tipu @ Tapan
Kumar Ojha) on the next date.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Rajesh
