Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Arjun Jani @ Tuntun vs State Of Orissa on 7 May, 2026
1
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7128/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2016
in JCRLA No. 46/2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack]
ARJUN JANI @ TUNTUN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondent(s)
Date : 07-05-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
Mr. Aryan Vaibhav Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Laxmi, Adv.
Mr. K.R. Satapathy, Adv.
Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. This petition arises from a very disturbing order passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 11-1-2016 in JCRLA
No.46 of 2015 by which the High Court declined to condone the delay
of 3157 days in preferring Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and
Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and thereby dismissed
the Criminal Appeal on the ground of being time-barred.
Signature Not Verified
2.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.05.07
We take notice of the fact that the petitioner was put to
18:31:34 IST
Reason:
trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in
CT No.20 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) respectively.
2
3. At the end of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty of the
alleged crime and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
4. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by
the Trial court is dated 25th August 2006.
5. The petitioner went before the High Court with a Criminal
Appeal, however, there was a delay of nine years.
6. The High Court, by a very short order declined to condone the
delay and thereby dismissed the appeal:-
“This appeal is beyond time by 3157 days. From the jail memo of
appeal, we do not find any viable reason to condone the delay near
about nine years. Delay condonation application is dismissed and
appeal too stands dismissed.”
7. The High Court, while declining to condone the delay, ought to
have considered the fact that the petitioner was already undergoing
sentence past 12 years. The High Court ought to have also
considered that it was an appeal through jail. This itself was
sufficient for the High Court to take a practical view or rather a
sympathetic view of the matter and at least ought to have condoned
the delay so as to give one opportunity to the petitioner to argue
his criminal appeal on merits. As on date, the petitioner has
undergone almost 22 years of sentence.
8. We are informed that the petitioner has not been released even
once on parole or furlough.
9. In such circumstances, referred to above, condoning the delay
and asking the High Court now to hear the Criminal Appeal on merits
will be a futile exercise
10. We heard Ms. Pragati Nikhra, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Laxmi, the learned counsel for the respondent.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced
the Conduct Certificate issued by the Senior Superintendent, Circle
3
Jail, Koraput dated 07.05.2026. The Conduct Certificate reads thus:
“Certified that, the life convict No.6297/A ARJUN
JANI@TUNTUN, aged about 45 years, S/O- Late Mukunda
Jani of Vill: Hirlidangri, PS: Nabarangpur, Dist:
Nabarangpur, State: Odisha was detained in Jail custody
since 20.01.2004 at Sub Jail, Nabarangpur being
convicted in CT-20/2004 U/S 302 of IPC by the Hon’ble
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur and
sentenced to undergo R.I for life on 25.08.2006 and he
was received on transfer from Sub Jail, Nabarangpur to
Circle Jail, Koraput on 20.09.2006.
During that, the period of his confinement in this
Circle Jail his conduct and behaviour is satisfactory.
His behaviour and attitude towards other Co-prisoner as
well as staffs are also being quite satisfactory. The
above named life convict has never any punishment in
Jail Offence from the date of admission in to this
Prison. Nothing adverse report / remark received during
his period of confinement from the date of admission in
to this Prison till date and he is working in this Jail
in Laundry.”
12. We are convinced that we should release the petitioner on bail
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
13. Thus, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution as an exceptional case, we order that the petitioner
be released on bail on he executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-
to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
14. We direct the District Legal Services Authority, Koraput,
State of Odisha to help the petitioner in preparing an appropriate
representation, seeking remission of sentence in accordance with
the remission policy prevailing at the time of the commission of
the offence or any Policy which is beneficial to the petitioner
insofar as the remission of sentence is concerned.
4
15. We have passed this order keeping in mind the fact that the
petitioner is undergoing sentence past 22 years and has not been
released even once during this period of 22 years. His jail conduct
has also been found to be satisfactory.
16. Registry shall inform about this Order to the Senior
Superintendent, Circle Jail, Koraput at the earliest as well as the
District Legal Services Authority, Koraput.
17. Post this matter for reporting compliance on 28-5-2026.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
