Orissa High Court
Manoja Behera @ vs State Of Odisha on 25 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.164 of 2019
Manoja Behera @ ..... Appellant/Petitioner
Kunthu
Mr. Asutosh Tripathy,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/Opp. Party
Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
25.03.2025
10. 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.
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Mar-2025 11:59:11
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant-petitioner along with another has
been convicted for the offence under section 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a
period of two months by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Athmallik vide judgment and order dated
30.01.2019 in C.T. (S) Case No.188 of 2017/C.T. (S)
Case No.120 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner dated 25.03.2025
received from the Superintendent, Model Convict Prison,
Athgarh which indicates that the petitioner has
remained in judicial custody for nine years, eleven
months and five days. Learned counsel has also
produced the written instruction dated 20.03.2025
received from the Inspector in-charge of Kishorenagar
police station which indicates that there is no criminal
antecedent against the petitioner. The custody
certificate and the written instruction are taken on
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was taken into judicial custody in
connection with this case on 12.02.2015 and the first
bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit in
I.A. No.550 of 2020 vide order dated 10.08.2020,
however, he was directed to be released on bail for a
period of ten weeks in I.A. No.666 of 2023 vide order
dated 05.03.2024. Learned counsel further submitted
that though the paper book has been prepared, there is
no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near future
and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may
be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail.
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, 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 also 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.
Let the appellant-petitioner Manoja Behera @
Kunthu be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(rupees fifty
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 Cuttack
Kishorenagar police station regarding the conduct of the
petitioner while on interim bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
11. List this matter in the week commencing from
02.07.2025. 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
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Sipun
