Orissa High Court
Lingaraj Patra vs State Of Odisha (Vigilance) on 11 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.427 of 2025
Lingaraj Patra .... Appellant(s)
Mr. B. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) .... Respondent(s)
Mr. S. K. Das, SC (Vigilance)
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.04.2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. Admit
3. Call for the trial Court records.
4. List this matter along with CRLA Nos.402, 235, 281, 265,
279 & 304 of 2025 indicating the name of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das,
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department on the top
of the brief as well as in the cause list henceforth.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
I.A. No.877 of 2025
Order No.
02. 1. This is an application for bail.
2. Heard.
3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under
Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act read
Page 1 of 3
with Section 420/468/471/120 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for the
offence under Sections 420 of I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for
six months for the offence under Section 468 of I.P.C. and to
undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in
default, to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section
471 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the
offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C. The sentences were directed
to run concurrently by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.34 of 2010.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during trial and has never misutilized the
liberty granted to him. Since there is very remote chance of early
hearing of the appeal in near future, the appellant may be directed
to be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department opposed the
prayer for bail.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the
prosecution during trial, the sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court and there is very remote chance of early hearing of the appeal
in near future, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the appellant be released on bail by the
learned trial Court in connection with the aforesaid case on such
terms and conditions as would be deem fit and proper. The sentence
Page 2 of 3
so imposed by the learned trial Court against the appellant shall
remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.
8. The I.A. is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
I.A. No.878 of 2025
Order No.
03. 1. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, let there be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellant pending disposal
of the Criminal Appeal.
4. The I.A. is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Apr-2025 15:38:30
Page 3 of 3