Orissa High Court
Rabindra Mallick vs State Of Odisha on 24 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.488 of 2015
1. Rabindra Mallick
2. Chhabindra Mallick
3. Pabitra Mallick ..... Appellants/
Petitioners
Mr. G.B. Singh,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. S.C. Pradhan,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No.
24.06.2025
08. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Though prisoners petitions dated 26.04.2017,
16.10.2023 and 21.10.2023 have been received, which
are at "Flag-D, E & F" respectively to engage Mr. Soura
Signature Not
Verified
Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate as their
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior
Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
counsel in place of Mr. Debasnan Das, however, Mr. S.K.
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 25-Jun-2025 19:37:45
Nayak-2 and his associates have filed Vakalatnama on
behalf of all the appellants, which is dated 03.10.2024
and therefore, we are accepting the Vakalatnama filed by
Mr. S.K. Nayak-2 and his associates as Advocates for the
appellants.
The names of Mr. Debasnan Das and his associates
so also the names of Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra,
learned Senior Advocate and his associates shall not be
reflected in the cause list henceforth.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
09. This is an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail of appellants.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellants-petitioners have been convicted for
the offence punishable under section 302/34 of I.P.C.
and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand)
each, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of
one year each by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jagatsinghpur vide judgment and order dated
21.08.2015 in C.T. Case No.27 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner no.1 Rabindra Mallick, petitioner no.2
Chhabindra Mallick and petitioner no.3 Pabitra Mallick
were taken into judicial custody in connection with this
case on 29.06.2012, 04.07.2012 and 05.07.2012
respectively and they were never released on bail during
trial and as such, they have remained in judicial custody
for more than twelve years. Learned counsel further
submitted that since there is no chance of early hearing
of appeal in the near future, the bail application of the
petitioners may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prayer
for bail of petitioner nos.2 & 3 was rejected by this Court
in this appeal on 06.10.2016 and three eye witnesses,
i.e. P.Ws.6, 7 & 10 have stated about the participation of
the petitioners in the assault of the deceased Sasmita
Mallick for which she was undergoing treatment in
SCBMCH, Cuttack and expired on 16.07.2012.
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
available materials on record, particularly, the
statements of the eye witnesses so also the evidence of
the doctor (P.W.11), who conducted the post mortem
examination, while not inclining to release the petitioners
on bail on merit, but taking into account the period of
detention of the petitioners 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 petitioners on interim bail for a period of three
months each from the date of their release and the
petitioners shall surrender before the learned trial Court
immediately on expiry of the three months period.
For the above period, let the appellants-petitioners
be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty
thousand) each with one local solvent surety each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court
subject to condition that they 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 Kujang police
station regarding the conduct of the petitioners while on
interim bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
10. List this matter in the week commencing from
08.10.2025. Learned counsel for the appellants shall
produce the surrender certificate of the appellants on the
next date.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per
rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Sipun
