Orissa High Court
Nirmala Chandra Dalei vs State Of Odisha on 8 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.246 of 2017
Nirmala Chandra Dalei ..... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Biswaranjan Swain,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
08.09.2025
12. 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
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and
Location: HIGH COURT OF
ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Sep-2025 19:20:12
sentenced him 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 further period of six months
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh vide
judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 in S.T. Case
No.64/59 of 2013/2011.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner dated 26.08.2025
received from the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Banki, which
shows that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more
than ten years. The custody certificate is taken on
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit on
11.01.2021, however, since there is no chance of early
hearing of appeal in the near future and keeping in view
the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial
custody and the ratio laid down in the case of Leti @
Jayadeb Roy and another -Vrs.- The State reported
in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal Reports 427, 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 (supra), 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 the nature of
evidence adduced during trial, 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 Baideswar 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
13. List this matter in the week commencing from
15.12.2025. 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
