Presumption of Innocence Ends with Conviction – Orissa High Court Declines Post-Conviction Bail for Man in ₹31 Lakh Fake Currency Case

“The plea of presumption of innocence is not available to a convict anymore… suspension of sentence post-conviction cannot be claimed as a matter of right” – Procedural Lapses Are for Appeal, Not Bail” – Orissa High Court delivered a crucial judgment in Lingaraj Behera v. State of Odisha, refusing to suspend the sentence or grant bail to a man convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC for possessing and circulating counterfeit currency worth ₹31.27 lakhs. Justice R.K. Pattanaik, presiding over CRLREV No. 666 of 2024, held that post-conviction, the legal presumption of innocence evaporates, and bail cannot be granted merely on account of alleged procedural defects.

Refusing to entertain arguments on evidentiary inconsistencies or flaws in the investigation at the bail stage, the Court ruled, “Any detailed examination of evidence at present is alien to the Court’s jurisdiction… such a course of action is forbidden as the exercise is to be confined to an overview examination of the materials.”

The revision petition was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, dated 2nd September 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s plea for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the CrPC. The petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since February 2023, argued that he was falsely implicated, that the forensic examination was flawed, and that the prosecution failed to examine the forensic expert during trial.

“Bail After Conviction Requires Something Glaringly Apparent on Record” – High Court Applies Supreme Court Precedents on Post-Conviction Bail

The Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions to underscore the limited scope of relief under Section 389 CrPC. Citing Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, the Court reiterated that, “What is to be looked into is something palpable and very apparent on the face of the record, on the basis of which, it can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be legally sustainable.”

The petitioner had highlighted inconsistencies between the list of seized currency notes and the details in the forensic lab’s forwarding memo, claiming that the mismatch cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. However, the Court was unmoved, holding that such contentions go to the merits of the appeal, not to the legality of custody.

The Court held that the accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of fake currency notes and offered no explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. “With such evidence on record and forensic report i.e. Ext.21, it may not be proper to allege that the order of conviction is indefensible,” the Court observed.

“Presumption of Innocence is a Pre-Trial Privilege, Not a Post-Conviction Guarantee” – No Bail Despite Long Custody

Dismissing the argument based on prolonged custody, the Court declared, “The valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time… but that alone cannot undo the legal consequence of a lawful conviction.” The Court refused to treat incarceration since April 2023 as a reason to suspend the sentence, stating that post-conviction bail is governed by a different standard than pre-trial release.

Justice Pattanaik wrote, “The Court is of the view that the learned court below did not err in denying suspension of execution of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. despite his custody ever since 2023… the presumption of innocence is no more available to a convict.”

“Fake Notes Found, Forensic Confirmed, Possession Established – No Exceptional Circumstance to Justify Suspension of Sentence”

The Court noted that the forensic examination report (Exbt.21) confirmed the seized notes as counterfeit. Though the petitioner argued that the forensic expert was not examined, the Court held that this issue could be tested in the appeal under Section 291 CrPC, which allows reports to be read into evidence under certain conditions.

Addressing allegations that the IO improperly resealed and resent the exhibits after initial discrepancies, the Court said, “The evidence of PW-9, the IO, shows that exhibits were returned and reforwarded under proper sealing by order of SDJM, Titilagarh… If lapses had occurred, they ought to have been challenged during trial and confronted in cross-examination.”

Court Directs Expedited Hearing of Appeal: "Justice Delayed Must Not Make Appeal Meaningless"

Though rejecting the bail prayer, the High Court acknowledged the importance of timely appellate review and directed the Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, to dispose of the appeal within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment. Quoting the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, the Court reminded, “The invaluable right of appeal becomes a futile exercise by passage of time.”

In conclusion, the Court held: “The learned court below shall have to consider disposal of appeal on merit and according to law without being influenced by any of its observations… but within a stipulated period.”

Date of Judgment: 09 September 2025