Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2593 of 2025 Dipu @ Jagan Dhal State of Odisha …. Petitioner (s) Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Jyoshnamayee Sahoo, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. 02. F.I.R. No. 382 ORDER 09.05.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections 03.11.2024 Jenapur Courts’ Name C.T. (Sessions) Case No. 299 of 2025 arising out of Jenapur P.S. Case No.382 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned Additional District Sessions Chandikhole. and Judge, Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC) 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 3. The petitioner has filed the present bail application seeking release in connection with C.T. (Sessions) Case No. 299 of 2025 arising out of Jenapur P.S. Case No. 382 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC). 4. As per the prosecution, on 02.11.2024, the informant lodged a report stating that the deceased, Dusmant Nayak, had gone to Chandikhole with the petitioner, his nephew, carrying Rs.75,000/- to purchase a motorcycle, but did not return. When asked, the petitioner claimed he had dropped the deceased at Barada. The family later discovered the deceased’s body near the Gadamadhupur jungle. Based on this, the FIR was registered and, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and one Biswajit Muduli on 03.11.2024. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and has remained in custody since. His prior bail application was rejected by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chandikhole on 28.02.2025. 5. The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the case merely on the basis of suspicion, as he had last accompanied the deceased for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle. He asserts that there is no direct evidence linking him to the alleged crime and that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Except for the confessional statement made before the police, which has limited evidentiary value, no other material has been produced to establish his involvement. The Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 161 Cr.P.C. statements do not suggest that he was present at the time of the occurrence, which allegedly took place in broad daylight. Therefore, the petitioner submits that he deserves to be released on bail. 6. The petitioner further submits that he has remained in custody since 03.11.2024 and has undergone considerable detention amounting to substantive punishment even before conviction. He has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of his village, and undertakes to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court. Given the nature of the evidence, the circumstances of the case, and his continued detention, the petitioner prays for his release on bail, contending that there is no risk of his absconding or tampering with evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, contending that the offence is grave and the petitioner was last seen with the deceased, who was later found dead under suspicious circumstances. The explanation offered by the petitioner is unconvincing, and his custodial confession, along with other material collected during investigation, prima facie suggests his involvement. It is submitted that releasing the petitioner at this stage may hinder the trial and lead to tampering with evidence. 8. The determination of whether a case warrants the grant of bail requires a careful balancing of multiple factors, including the nature of the offense, the severity of the prescribed punishment, and a prima facie assessment of the accused’s involvement. There exists no rigid or inflexible formula for courts to apply when deciding bail applications; Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 rather, each case must be assessed on its own merits. At the stage of considering bail, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed evaluation of the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as that remains the domain of trial. However, the court must examine whether prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused has committed the offense and, upon weighing all relevant considerations, whether the continued custody of the accused advances the interests of the criminal justice system. 9. The present case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness account linking him to the commission of the offence. While the petitioner was last seen with the deceased, the "last seen" theory by itself, without corroborative evidence, may not be sufficient to sustain the charge, especially when the time gap between the last seen and the discovery of the body is unclear. 10. Substantiating on the last seen theory, the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.V. Mahesh1 held as follows: “Merely being seen last together is not enough. What has to be established in a case of this nature is definite evidence to indicate that Beena had been done to death of which the respondent is or must be aware as also proximate to the time of being last seen together. No such clinching evidence is put forth. It is no doubt true that even in the absence of the corpus delicti it is possible to establish in an appropriate case commission of murder on appropriate material being made available to the court. In this case no such material is made available to the court.” 1 AIR ONLINE 2003 SC 497. Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 11. Likewise, the Supreme Court took a similar stance in the case of State of U.P. v. Satish2 and held that the principle of last seen theory comes into play in a particular scenario. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.” 12. In the present case, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the "last seen" circumstance, asserting that the petitioner was last seen accompanying the deceased, which is sought to be used as a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. 13. While such a circumstance may have bearing at the stage of trial, its evidentiary worth is yet to be tested through cross-examination and proper adjudication. Considering that the petitioner has remained in custody since 03.11.2024 and there is no material to indicate any likelihood of him absconding or tampering with the evidence, continued pre-trial detention may not be warranted at this stage. 14. Given the nature of the case and the fact that trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each date of posting of the case; ii. the petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail; iii. the petitioner shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner; and 2 AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1000. Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:05 iv. The Petitioner, after the onset of monsoon (between June, 2025 to August, 2025), shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation. 15. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings as required. 16. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain those plants for a period of two years. 17. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings. 18. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Page 6 of 6