1. Soubhagya Ranjan Das 2. Binod Majhi 3. Ruhia Singh 4. Mangal Singh State v. ….. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate Opposite Party Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 82 of 2024 1. Soubhagya Ranjan Das 2. Binod Majhi 3. Ruhia Singh 4. Mangal Singh State of Odisha Petitioners ….. Vs. ….. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate Opposite Party Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 01.02.2024 Order No. 02. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This is the second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 458 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 962 of 2023 in the court of the J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack where chargesheet dated 13.10.2023 has been filed against the petitoners under Sections 306, 348, 323 and 34 of the IPC keeping the investigation open. Two other co-accused – Adity Das and Sangram Das are yet to be arrested. 2. The earlier application for bail of the petitioners in BLAPL No. 10693 of 2023 had been rejected on 30.11.2023 granting liberty to them to move for bail afresh in case there is delay in commitment of the case. 3. The report dated 31.01.2024 of the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack reveals that the case was posted for supply of police papers and commitment on 01.02.2024. 4. The prayer for bail of the petitioners had been rejected by order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Page 1 of 6 5. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased was working as Driver of one Aditya Das, owner of M/s.City Flyass Bricks, Bamphakuda under Cuttack Sadar Police Station. For seven days, on the suspicion that he had stolen the mobile phone of petitioner no.3-Ruhia Singh he was assaulted by the petitioners and co-accused, Sangram Das and Aditya Das mercilessly. They had tied his hands and confined him in a room and did not provide him with food and water. On the next morning , petitioner no.1-Soubhagya Ranjan Das informed the witnesses that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself from a fan by means of a plastic rope in the room . After arrival of Aditya Das , the owner of the brick kiln , the father and uncle of the deceased were informed and they reached the spot and found the deceased with arms tied in front of his body and his feet touching the floor . They reported the matter to the Police and F.I.R. was registered against the the owner of the brick kiln and workers under Section – 302 / 34 I.P.C . 6. During investigation, the CCTV footage from the office room was retrieved and saved in a pendrive and a certificate prepared under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Three wooden lathis have been seized from the spot. Co accused Aditya Das, owner of the brick kiln has been examined as an inquest witness, but not arrested . Strangely , Dr. S.K. Patri , Asst Professor , Department of F.M. & SCB, MCH after examination of photographs and exhibits has opined thar “it is possible to execute hanging by self with the black tie on the wrists.”, which defies common sense . Therafter chargesheet has Page 2 of 6 been submitted on 13.10.2023 under Sections 306, 348, 323 and 34 of the IPC against the present petitioner mentioning that co- accused Aditya Das and Sangram Das are yet to be arrested keeping the investigation open. From the report of the learned JMFC, it appears that before completion of further investigation , the case is ready for commitment .
Legal Reasoning
7. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are labourers and are not criminals and they had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. On the suspicion that the deceased had stolen the mobile phone of petitioner no.3-Ruhia Singh, he was assaulted on the instructions of the owner of the brick klin-Aditya Das. Post mortem examination report reveals that the death is due to asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of anti-morten hanging and after completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners under Sections 342, 323, 306 and 34 of IPC and the petitioners are in custody since 15.08.2023. 8. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that petitioner No.1 is the Suprevisor of the brick kiln and nota labourer . He placed the statements of Gopinath Singh and Sanatan Singh, co-workers of the deceased who have spoken about the assault on the decesaed by the petitioners and co accused in the office room of Aditya Das . Soumya Ranjan Jena , Ashok Kumar Sahoo and Ramakanta Nayak have stated about the circumstances in which the body of the decesaed was found . The Page 3 of 6 CCTV footage of the office room supports this. Thereafter on the instructions of co accused Aditya Das-the owner of the brick Kiln , the hands of the deceased were by petitioner no.4-Mangal Singh and he was taken to the asbestos room when he was mercelessly assaulted by co-accused, Sangram Das and the present petitioners with fist blows and kicks and a wooden sticks and inspite of requests of the other witnesses, they did not stop . They left him in the room without food and water. In view of the circusmtances in which the body was found and the number and nature of bodies on the deceased , as some of the witnesses are their co workers and the owner of the brick kiln has not been arrested , they may influence witnesses if they are released on bail . 9. The post mortem report reveals that apart from multiple petechial haemerrhages on both legs , saliva present on wearing apparel and black left eye , the deceased had sustained the following external injuries: “1. An abrasion contusion of site 2 cm x 1 cm is pressed on left side forehead just above eye brow. 2. An abrasion of size 2 cm x 1 cm is present just below left ear. 3. A contusion of size 5 cm x 3 cm is present on front of right lower leg, 20 cm below knee. 4. A contusion of size 7 cm x 4 cm is present on outer aspect of right thigh. 5. A contusion of size 20 cm x 10 cm is present on left buttock. 6. A contusion of size 4 cm x 3 cm is present on medial aspect of right upper leg, just below knee. 7. A parallel bruise of size 6 cm x 4 cm with intervening gap of 0.5 cm is present on front of left lower thigh. Page 4 of 6 8. A parallel bruise of size 6 cm x 3 cm with intervening gap of 0.5 cm is present on outer aspect of left lower arm. 9. A well marked gravid pressure abrasion looking reddish brown colour is found almost completely encircling the neck. In the front, it lies above thyroid cartilage, 5 cm below chin. To left, it goes in a backward and upward direction where it lies 0.5 cm below angle of mandible and terminates close to left mastoid process. To right it goes in a backward direction and upward direction and lies 5 cm below angle of mandible and 1 cm below mastoid process. Then it traverses in nape of neck and merges in the left side neck with the pressure abrasion. The mark is present obliquely in the neck and present in an inverted “V” shaped manner in the back of neck . Cause of death has been opined to be due to asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of ante mortem hanging. 10. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who had gone to the spot after they were informed / learnt that the deceased had hanged himslef , reveal that the hands of the deceased were tied in the front and he was hanging from the ceiling but his legs were touching the ground. Other witnesses have stated that on the suspicion of having stolen a mobile phone , his hands were tied and he was assaulted by kicks and fist blows and lathis by the petitioners and the two co accused persons , which has also been captured by the CCTV cameras. Thereafter , he was confined in a room without food and water and was allegedly found in the morning hanging from the ceiling by Petitioner No.1 Soumya Ranjan Das. The post mortem examination report reavelas that apart from the pressure abrasion on the neck , Page 5 of 6 the deceased had sustained eight external injuries apart and had multiple petechial haemerrhages on both legs. Many of the winesses are the co- workers of the petitioners and the owner of the brick kiln has not been arrested , so the possibility of their ifluencing witnesses , if they are realesed on bail is strong .
Decision
11. In view of the above discussion , I do not consider this to be a fit case to release the petitioners on bail . 12. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. 13. It is open to the petitioners to move the learned court below for bail afresh after examination of the material witnesses in the trial or if there is undue delay in examination of the material witnesses in the trial. 14. The learned trial court should not be influnced by any observation in this order regarding allegations / materials against the petitioners as they have been made for the purpose of considering the prayer for bail . 15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 16. Copy of this order be communicated by the Registry to the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack and the learned trial Court . ………………….. (Savitri Ratho) puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 12-Feb-2024 14:17:25 Judge Page 6 of 6