Raghumani Deep State of Odisha … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 92 of 2024 Raghumani Deep State of Odisha ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. Bharat Bhusan Routray, Advocate Opposite Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
ORDER 29.01.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 02. 1. This is the third application of the petitioner under Section – 439 Cr.P.C before this Court, in connection with Bijepur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 89 of 2018 in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Padampur, where the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307 and 302 of IPC. 2. BLAPL No. 5824 of 2018 first filed by the petitioner had been rejected vide order dated 30.10.2018. Thereafter BLAPL No. 7778 of 2018 had been filed by the petitioner and it was dismissed on 15.05.2019 holding that there is no change of circumstance after the dismissal of BLAPL No. 5824 of 2018. But it had been observed that in case a request made by the petitioner for expediting the trial, the same may be expedited and the trial conducted preferably within a period of 6 months. Page 1 of 5 More than four years have elapsed since then. 3. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has thereafter been rejected vide order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Padampur when 10 witnesses had been examined in the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not moved the learned court below for bail thereafter. 4. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 13.04.2018 at about 12 noon due to land dispute, the petitioner there was an altercation between the petitioner and the sons of the informant - Dasarath Deep and Sanjib Deep in front of his house. He abused them and raised hullah. When grand son-in-law of the informant, Usat Mahanand went to the spot and tried to stop the petitioner, the petitioner threatened him and climbed upon the roof of his house and started pelting bricks at them. The bricks thrown by the petitioner hit the head and left thigh of the informant causing bleeding injuries. It caused swelling injury on the palm of Dasarath Deep while Sanjib Deep sustained swelling injury on his back. As some bricks fell on the head of Usat Mahanand, he fell down on the ground unconscious and was immediately taken to Bijepur Hospital in an ambulance. He was declared dead by the Doctor there. 5. Mr. Bharat Bhusan Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2018 and out of 29 witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined so far and in view of the Page 2 of 5 nature of allegations, it is apparent that the incident was preceded by a quarrel after which the petitioner is alleged to have thrown bricks at the injured and the deceased. While three persons were injured, one brick hit on head of the deceased for which he became unconscious and subsequently succumbed to his injury. The petitioner however had no intention to kill the deceased. 6. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the injured have been examined in the trial and have supported the prosecution case and 4 eye witnesses have also been examined as P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W.13 and P.W.14 and they have also supported the prosecution case. Considering the fact that the petitioner has caused the death of one person and injured 3 others, he does not deserve to be released on bail as the trial is in progress. He further submits that the deceased has sustained 2 injuries on the head. 7. As the petitioner was stated to be in custody since 14.04.2018, and trial was still pending, on 11.01.2024, a report had been called for from the learned court below regarding status of the trial and reason for delay in completion. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Padampur has reported that charge was framed on 24.03.2021 and could not proceed till 22.07.2021 due to COVID-19 pandemic and though summons were issued to the witnesses, they did not appear till 13.12.2022 and till date out of 25 charge sheet witnesses, 15 witnesses Page 3 of 5 have been examined and the case is posted to 29.01.2024 (today) for hearing. 8. It is the settled position of law that liberty of an individual is sacrosanct and flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and liberty of an accused cannot curtailed indefinitely on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, especially when delay in conclusion of the proceedings cannot be attributed to the accused. In the present case the petitioner is in custody 14.04.2018 (almost six years) and as per report of the learned trial court fifteen witnesses have been examined and ten witnesses remain to be to be examined by the prosecution and the delay in trial is on account of the Covid pandemic and non appearance of witnesses. 9. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the right of the petitioner to speedy trial and the fact that he has stayed in custody for more than 5 years 9 months and ten witnesses remain to be examined, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 10. The petitioner- Raghumani Deep shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions : (i) He will threaten or try to influence prosecution witnesses while on bail. Page 4 of 5 (ii) He will report before the IIC, Bijepur Police Station, once on every alternate Sunday between 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m., till conclusion of trial. (iii) He shall not leave Bargarh District without prior permission of the learned trial Court. (iv) He will remain present in the learned trial court on each date it if fixed for trial unless his appearance is dispensed with by the learned trial Court under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on any particular day. 11. Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of bail. 12. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 14. No observation in this order should influence the learned trial court in any manner during trial as they have been made for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for bail. 15. Copy of this order be supplied to Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for onward transmission to the IIC, Bijepur Police Station. Signature Not Verified puspa Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 12-Feb-2024 14:16:11 (Savitri Ratho) Judge Page 5 of 5