[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Papu @ Sanjay Pani vs State Of Odisha on 11 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.446 of 2021
Papu @ Sanjay Pani .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Represented By Adv.-
Mr. A.R. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Represented By Adv.-
Mr. P.S. Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
11.02.2026
(Hybrid mode)
Order No.
12. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard Mr. A.R. Panda, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), in default, to
undergo further R.I. for a period of one year by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur vide judgment
and order dated 03.08.2021 passed in C.T. (Sessions)
Case No.137 of 2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.01.2016.
Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence
in question took place on 17.01.2016 and the deceased
died on 21.01.2016 during the course of his treatment.
He further submitted that P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the eye
witnesses to the occurrence and though it is stated by
the eye witnesses that the assault was made by the
petitioner on the leg of the deceased-Ashok Ojha, but
the doctor (P.W.13), who conducted the post mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased, has
not noticed any injuries on the leg of the deceased.
Learned counsel further submitted that after availing
the interim bail period of three months as per order
dated 15.07.2024, the petitioner has surrendered
before the learned trial Court and he is now in judicial
custody and since he is in custody for more than ten
years and there is no chance of early hearing of
appeal in the near future, the bail application of the
petitioner may be favourably considered.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
the eye witnesses i.e. P.W.5 and P.W.6 and also the
evidence of the doctor (P.W.13), who noticed number of
injuries on the right frontal reason of the deceased and
opined that the cause of death was due to Cranio
Cerebral injuries. Learned counsel for the State has
produced the written report dated 23.09.2025, which is
at flag 'F', received from the Inspector in-charge of
Kuakhia police station, which shows that during the
interim bail period, nothing adverse was found against
the petitioner.
6. 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."
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the period of
detention of the petitioner in judicial custody for more
than ten years, the report of the Inspector in-charge of
Kuakhia police station, absence of any chance of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future and keeping in
view the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Leti
(supra), we are inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court. While on bail, the
petitioner shall not try to come in contact with any of
the family members of the deceased and he shall not
indulge in any criminal activities in any manner.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
Rabindra/Ranjeeta
Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 12-Feb-2026 12:07:34
