Santosh Naik v. State of Odisha

Opposite Party Mr. R.Pradhan, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER

24.01.2025 Order No.

Heard Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State.

Instant petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.859 of 2024 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Padampur arising out of Paikmal P.S. Case No.167 of 2024 on the grounds stated therein.

Perused the F.I.R, and rejection order as at Annexures-1 and 2 respectively.

Referring to Annexure-3 series, such as, statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not involved in the assault. It is further submitted that upon such disclosures being made, as per Annexure-3 series, recovery and seizure has been made in respect of the weapons of offence. Further referring to the statements of the other witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNS, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the names of the main assailants, who assaulted the deceased, are clearly revealed and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not one among them, considering which, the Court should allow him to go on bail with any conditions as in any case, the chargesheet is filed upon closure of investigation.

Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that the involvement of the petitioner has been revealed during investigation, hence, he should not be granted bail.

Gone through the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as at Annexure-3 series. The witnesses to the occurrence have been examined under Section 180 BNS and all of them described the events, which have taken place, in and around the time, when the alleged incident happened. In fact, it is made to understand that all the accused persons did commit mischief but the manner of assault is revealed from other accused persons. Even though, such admission of guilt by the named accused persons, whose statements have been recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act not to be admissible but it has led to the discovery of weapons of offence. As far as the petitioner is concerned, having considered the evidence brought to the notice of the Court, as to if, he was one among the assailants with the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNS and in particular, a witness, namely, Balabhadra Biswal, it is made to appear that he could able to identify two of the accused persons, namely, Prakash Khuntia and Rabi Naik. Considering the materials on record and submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, in absence of any specific overt act shown to have been committed by the petitioner during the alleged occurrence and disclosures by the co-accused persons leading to the recovery of the weapons of offence, the Court is of the view that he should be allowed to go on bail with conditions.

Hence, it is ordered.

In the result, petition under Section 483 BNSS stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to go on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.859 of 2024 arising out of Paikmal P.S. Case No.167 of 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Padampur, who shall be at liberty to impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The BLAPL is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 25-Jan-2025 13:54:28