[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kalia Naik vs State Of Odisha on 2 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 387 of 2019
Kalia Naik .... Appellant
Represented by -
Mr. Neelakantha Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Represented by -
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.02.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. 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.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I.
for three months more, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal vide
judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 passed in C.T.(Ss) Case No. 132 of
2017.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 17.11.2025 of this Court, the
Superintendent, Model Convict Prison, Athagarh has submitted the
Custody Certificate as well as the Conduct Certificate of the convict Kalia
Naik, which indicates that the Appellant-petitioner Kalia Naik has
undergone imprisonment of eight years seven months and four days as on
30.01.2026, and his conduct and behavior in jail is 'Good'.
4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has relied
upon the testimony of P.W.11 - the doctor and tried to point out the
discrepancy in the evidence. He has also pointed out that the other co-
accused convict-appellants who participated in the alleged crime along
with the present appellant-petitioner for commission of the offence, have
already been enlarged on bail.
5. Mr. Panda further submits that the appeal is pending since 2019, and
since paper-book has not been prepared in this case, there is no chance of
early hearing of the appeal in near future. He also submits that the balance
of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and therefore the bail
application may be favourably considered.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
7. In the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another -Vrs.- The State
reported in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal Reports 427, wherein 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."
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties and
considering the available materials on record, the nature and gravity of the
offence, while we are not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on
merit, but taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in
judicial custody since 27.06.2017, which is for more than eight years and
seven months and since paper-book has not yet been prepared and there is
also no chance of early hearing of the appeal in near future, and keeping in
view the ratio 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. The appellant-Petitioner Kalia Naik shall surrender
before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal immediately on
expiry of the said three months period from the date of his release.
9. For the above period, let the Appellant-Petitioner namely Kalia Naik
be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only with one local solvent surety
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge,
Dhenkanal, subject to condition that he shall not indulge in any criminal
activities in any manner whatsoever. Violation of any of the conditions
shall entail cancellation of interim bail.
10. Learned counsel for the State shall obtain and produce the report
from the concerned I.I.C. regarding the conduct of the Petitioner while on
interim bail.
11. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
S.K. Parida
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 02-Feb-2026 19:33:11
