[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Palei vs State Of Odisha on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.508 of 2022
Santosh Kumar Palei .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.04.2026
(Hybrid mode)
I.A. No.89 of 2026
19. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted
under Sections 363/366/376(1)/302/404/201 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand),
in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a
period of six months for the offence under Section 302
of I.P.C., to further undergo R.I. for ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousands), in
default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence
under Section 376(1) of I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for seven
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five
thousand), in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I.
for six months for the offence under Section 363 of
I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default to undergo
R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 366 of
I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default to undergo
R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 201 of
I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default to
undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section
404 of I.P.C. and the sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Khurda in S.T. Case No.103 of 2015.
4. Vide order dated 11.03.2026, learned counsel for
the State was directed to obtain instruction regarding
the custody certificate, criminal antecedents and the jail
conduct of the appellant-petitioner. Pursuant thereto,
learned counsel for the State produced a report received
from the I.I.C., Nirakarpur P.S. which indicates that the
appellant has no criminal antecedent. She has also
produced the custody certificate received from the
Superintendent of District Jail, Khordha, which
indicates that the appellant has already undergone
custody for a period of eleven years two months
fourteen days and his jail conduct is satisfactory.
5. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence
and there is no direct evidence available on record.
Although P.W.6 and P.W.16 have been examined by
the prosecution to prove the recovery of weapon of
offence at the instance of the appellant on his
confession, but both the witnesses have turned
hostile. P.W.20 has been examined to record the
confession alleged to have been made by the appellant
before him, but the said witness has also not
supported the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution
attempted to prove the confession through the
evidence of I.O. (P.W.22). On the basis of the
aforementioned nature of evidence, Mr. Chand,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the appellant is entitled to grant of bail pending
appeal.
6. Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State on the contrary has
submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated
the evidence of as many as twenty-three witnesses
examined by the prosecution in right prospective and
arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of
offence under Sections 363/366/376(1)/302/404/201
and on that count sentence has been awarded. She
further submits that the appellant has committed a
heinous crime of commission of rape and subsequent
murder of the victim. Therefore, the appellant is not
entitled to bail.
7. Regard being had to the nature of evidence and
period of custody of the appellant and the fact that the
appeal has been pending since 2022 and there is no
probability of the appeal being heard in the near
future and keeping in view the principles laid down by
this Court in Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another Vrs.
The State reported in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal
Reports 427, we are inclined to release the convict-
appellant on interim bail for a period of three months
from the date of his actual release. The appellant shall
surrender before the learned trial court on expiry of
three months period.
For the above period, let the convict-appellant
be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty
thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court
subject to condition that while on interim bail the
convict-appellant shall not indulge in any criminal
activities in any manner and any other condition to be
imposed by the learned trial court as deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of interim bail.
8. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per
rules.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
20. 1. List this matter after three months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant shall file the
surrender certificate of the appellant on the next date.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Apr-2026 19:16:48
