Pradeep Khuntia vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 582 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pradeep Khuntia vs State Of Odisha on 14 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                           CRLA No.299 of 2016

                               Pradeep Khuntia                    ....     Appellant/
                                                                         Petitioner
                                                   Mr. Rakesh Behera,
                                                   Advocate
                                                     -versus-
                               State of Odisha                    ....    Respondent/
                                                                        Opp. Party

                                                   Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty,
                                                   Addl. Standing Counsel

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

Order No.                                          14.05.2025

              17.                  This   matter     is   taken    up    through    Hybrid

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

This is an application for interim bail on the ground that the petitioner has severe infections in his ear which has reduced his hearing ability significantly and he is sustaining severe pain for which, the petitioner was taken to S.C.B.M.C.H., Cuttack on 02.05.2025 by the Jail Authority, Khuntuni Sub-Jail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on six occasions, the petitioner has been taken to the

hospital for treatment of the infection of his ear and if he is granted interim bail, he can for better medical facility.

Learned counsel for the State has produced the medical documents relating to the treatment of the petitioner in S.C.B.M.C.H., Cuttack, which are taken on record.

After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, since best treatment is being provided to the petitioner by the jail authority for the infection in his ear in the premier hospital of the State, we are not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

18. This is an application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard.

Perused the impugned judgment.

The petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498-A/304-B/302

of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life i.e. his whole natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under section 304-B of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months for the offence under section 4 of D.P. Act and since the petitioner has already been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under section 304-B of I.P.C. which is the maximum sentence, separate similar sentence for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. has not been awarded and all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar in C.T. (Ss) Case No.172 of 2011/8 /2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than twelve years and his earlier bail application was rejected on 17.08.2020 and even though paper book has been prepared, there is no chance of early hearing

of the 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, in view of the available material on record, 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 since there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future 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 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 the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities in

any manner while on interim bail.

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 Parjang 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

19. List this matter in the week commencing from 25.08.2025. 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