Orissa High Court
Bhabindra Dehury vs State Of Odisha on 19 June, 2025
Author: S.K.Sahoo
Bench: S.K.Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.
No.626 of 2015
Bhabindra Dehury ..... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Niranjan Panda,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .....
Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 19.06.2025
10. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Since in view of the prisoner’s petition
petition, vide order
dated 04.11.2024, Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned counsel
has been engaged as the counsel for the appellant and
he has also filed the Vakalatnama, e
except
xcept the name of
Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned couns
counsel
el for the appellant
appellant,
the names of other counsel shall not be reflected in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
cause list henceforth.
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Jun-2025 18:32:53
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
I.A. No.865 of 2025
11. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant
appellant-petitioner
petitioner has been convicted for the
offences punishable under sections 405/376/506/302
506/302 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-(rupees
(rupees ten thousand), in default, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for
offence under section 405 of IIndian
ndian Penal Code, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-(rupees
(rupees ten thousand), in default,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for
the offence under section 376 of the Indian
Indian Penal Code,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/
Rs.2,000/-(rupees
(rupees two thousand), in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen
days for the offence under section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, to undergo ri
rigorous
gorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/-(rupees
(rupees ten thousand),
in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
months for the offence under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and the sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Phulbani vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 in
Sessions Trial Case No.86/144
No. of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced
the custody certificate issued by the Superintendent
Circle Jail, Phulbani, wh
which
ich indicates that the petitioner
is in judicial custody for about twelve years. The
custody certificate is taken on record.
It appears that earlier the bail application of the
petitioner has been rejected on merit twice vide order
dated 29.08.2017 in Mi
Misc.
sc. Case No.1720 of 2015 and
vide order dated 11.11.2024 in I.A. No.925 of 2023 and
I.A. No.2391 of 2024.
In the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another
-Vrs.- The State reported in (1990) 3 Orissa
Criminal Reports 427,
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
disposal of their appeals could claim their
release on bail with the aid of Art.21 of the
Constitution? According to us, Art.21 demand
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
run mill cases
enlargement on bail in the first instance for a
temporary period of say three months for
cogent personal reasons may
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 ba
bail
il 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 ch
character
aracter 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.”
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel
nsel for the respective parties and since earlier the
bail applications
s of the petitioner have been rejected on
merit, while not inclining to release the petitioner on
bail on merit, but taking into account the period of
detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and
absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in
the near future and also the law laid down 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 and the petitioner shall
surrender before the learned trial Court immediately on
expiry of the three months period.
For the above period, let the appellant
appellant-petitioner
petitioner
be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Rs.20,000/-(rupees
(rupees twenty
thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court
subject to condition that shall not indulge in any
criminal activities in any manner
manner.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of interim bail.
Learned counsel for the State shall produce the
report from the Inspector in
in-charge of Phulbani Sadar
police station regarding the conduct of the petitioner
while on interim bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
CRLA No.626 of 2015
12. List this matter in the week commencing from
08.10.2025.
Learned counsel for the appellant shall produce the
surrender certificate of the appellant on the next date.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Rajesh