The court emphasized that a conviction based on substantial evidence, including procedural compliance, negates claims for bail pending appeal, even under prolonged detention considerations.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 2^nd September, 2024 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2024 as at Annexure-5 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh arising out of S.T. Case No.28/1 of 2023-24, whereby, an application seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. moved by him demanding his release from judicial custody has been disallowed.

2. The facts pleaded on record reveal that the petitioner faced trial in S.T. Case No. 28/1 of 2023-24 and was ultimately convicted under Sections 489 -B and 489-C IPC and directed him to undergo R.I. for seven years as the maximum sentence awarded along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2024 and therein, the application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. was pressed into service seeking his release on bail with the suspension of sentence but it has not been found favour with and was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh as per Annexure-5 and the same is under challenge.

3. On a written complaint, CID, CB, STF P.S. Case No. 4 dated 2^nd February, 2023 was registered under Sections 420 ,468,471,489-A,489-B.489-C,489-D and 120-B of IPC and later on, a preliminary chargesheet was filed on 3^rd April, 2023, a copy of which is at Annexure-2 series and subsequent thereto, the learned Trial Court framed charge against the petitioner and proceeded with the trial, during which, nine chargesheeted witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and at last, the petitioner was convicted only for the offences under Sections 489 -B & 489-C IPC. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the appeal before the learned court below challenging the order of conviction and therein, moved the application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence and to release him on bail pending its disposal, however, it stood disallowed vide Annexure-5.

4. A copy of the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in S.T. Case No. 28/1 of 2023-24 is at Annexure-4 and the same is perused.

5. Heard Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

6. The grounds upon which the impugned order at Annexure-5 is questioned are as follows:(i) that, the learned court below failed to consider the procedural lapses and lack of corroborative evidence to prove the case against the petitioner, rather, heavily relied upon uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of the official witnesses ignoring the fact that the independent corroboration in support of search and seizure is essential and necessary not to have been held in accordance with Section 100 Cr.P.C. and hence, failure to comply the statutory safeguards leads to substantial doubt about the reliability and fairness of the evidence collected; (ii) that, there has been lapses in the documentation of the seized counterfeit currency notes and that affects credibility of the evidence produced against the petitioner, inasmuch as, due to such lapse or procedural oversight, it has led to a compromise in the accuracy of the evidence since the seizure does not reveal a detailed itemized denominations, which is a standard requirement in documenting critical evidence concerning economic offences; (iii) that, by keeping the investigation open in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and filing