Sadashiv Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 159 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sadashiv Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha on 5 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                            CRLA No.179 of 2019

                             Sadashiv Bhuyan                  .....          Appellant/
                                                                           Petitioner
                                                           Mr. Bisworanjan Swain,
                                                           Advocate
                                                            -versus-
                             State of Odisha                  .....        Respondent/
                                                                           Opp. Party
                                                           Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
                                                           Addl. Govt. Advocate

                                                       CORAM:
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                                       ORDER

05.05.2025

21. 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.

Perused the impugned judgment.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed offences punishable under sections 302/307 of I.P.C. and Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 18:01:42

pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), in

default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2019 in S.T. Case No.86 of 2013.

As per the order dated 08.04.2025, learned counsel for the State has produced the written instruction dated 20.04.2025 received from the Inspector in-charge of Rajnagar police station to the effect that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and no incident against him has been reported during the period of interim bail. The written instruction is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail for a period of three months as per the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by this Court in I.A. No.548 of 2019 and after availing the same, he surrendered at the right time and since there is no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near future, 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, the nature of evidence adduced during trial, since the petitioner has surrendered at the right time and in view of the written instruction produced by the learned counsel for the State, 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 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-petitioner be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(rupees twenty 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 Rajnagar 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

22. List this matter in the week commencing from 18.08.2025. 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

(S. S. Mishra) Judge Sipun