[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Litan @ Kishor Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha on 9 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 405 of 2017
Litan @ Kishor Kumar Das .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. Adyashakti Priya, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
09.03.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No.
13. I.A. No. 188 of 2025
1. This I.A. has been filed by the appellant-petitioner for bail in
connection with C.T. / Special Case No. 56 of 2011 of the court of
learned Judge, Special Court, Dhenkanal, in which the appellant-
petitioner Litan @ Kishor Kumar Das has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo R.I. for a further period of one year for the offence under
Section 302, IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(One Thousand), in
default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a further period of
one month more for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC.
2. Heard Ms. Adyashakti Priya, learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner, who appears through VC, and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi,
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Party.
3. Vide order of this Court dated 01.05.2019 the appellant-
petitioner was enlarged on interim bail for thirty days and
subsequently vide order dated 12.08.2024 he was again enlarged
on interim bail for a period of three months. The appellant-
petitioner has availed the aforesaid periods of interim bail and has
surrendered within the time frame allowed by this Court.
4. On the last date, this Court had sought for report from the
concerned Police Station through the learned counsel for the State
regarding the conduct of the appellant-petitioner during the interim
bail period. The I.I.C., Town P.S., Dhenkanal has produced the
detailed report dated 10.02.2026 before the Court, inter alia,
stating that the conduct of the appellant-petitioner during the
interim bail period is satisfactory and there is no complaint from
any quarter against him. The report is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has took us to the evidence
of P.W.20 leading to the evidence of the allegation against the
present appellant and the allegation against the co-convict Kisu @
Kishan Chandra Mishra @ Pravasis Mishra, which is also similar in
nature. In the connected appeal CRLA No.210 of 2017 vide order
dated 05.12.2025 the co-accused (convict) has also been enlarged
on bail by this Court.
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. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and submissions
made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, and
particularly in view of the conduct of the appellant-petitioner
during the interim bail period, which has been reflected in the
report of the I.I.C., Town P.S., Dhenkanal dated 10.02.2026 and
further the fact that the appellant-petitioner is in jail custody since
11 years 7 months and there seems to be no 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 @
Jayadeb Roy (supra), we consider the present appellant-
petitioner Litan @ Kishor Kumar Das to be similarly situated to that
of the co-accused (convict) Kisu @ Kishan Chandra Mishra @
Pravasis Mishra, and therefore we are inclined to enlarge the
present appellant-petitioner on bail.
8. Let the appellant-petitioner Litan @ Kishor Kumar Das be
released on bail, pending disposal of the appeal, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand
only) with two local solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special
Court, Dhenkanal. 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 whatsoever.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
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: 10-Mar-2026 18:48:01
