The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.2916 of 2023 Banamali Biswal Petitioner Mr. S.K.Tripathy, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K.Rout, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. 04. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Babu, learned AGA for the State-opposite party.
Decision
ORDER 24.07.2023 2. Instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 130 of 2021 corresponding to Saintala P.S.Case No. 133 of 2021 of the file of learned JMFC, Saintala initially registered under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act on the grounds stated therein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and other accused have in the meantime been chargesheeted under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC besides Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and the case stands committed, however, no charge is yet framed against them. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23rd May, 2021, whereas, the other accused who had accompanied him besides another have been released on bail vide BLAPL Nos. 9631 of Page 1 of 4 2021 and 2622 of 2022, copies of which have been produced before the Court today. It is submitted that the petitioner was in a drunken state at the relevant point of time and since he and the other accused were stopped by the informant and the deceased, the untoward incident happened, during and in course of which, he said to have fired causing injury to the victim, who later succumbed to it. It is claimed that the petitioner had in fact no intention to cause the death of the deceased and it all happened on the spot and the spur of moment, as he and the other accused persons had been to the forest for hunting wild animal. While claiming so, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the statements of the witnesses and also that of one of the accused persons, namely, to suggest that the accused persons were in an inebriated condition. Under the above circumstances and the manner in which the overt acts have been committed and having fairly admitted that the petitioner was the assailant, who fired the gunshot, learned counsel appearing for him submits that there was no premeditation and it all happened suddenly and having regard to the length of detention, the petitioner, who alone is in custody, should be enlarged on bail on any terms and conditions like the other co-accused persons. 4. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State-opposite party, on the other hand, opposed release of the petitioner on the ground that the deceased died because of gunshot fire by the petitioner. Mr. Rout, learned AGA referred to the statements of the witnesses and the informant in particular recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and further submits that the death of the victim is on account of the mischief committed by him. So, therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner notwithstanding his detention from 2021 onwards should not be released on bail for the reason that he is primarily responsible for the alleged death of the victim. Page 2 of 4 5. The certified copies of the statements of the witnesses and other relevant documents have been produced before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is made to appear from the chargesheet, a certified copy of which is also produced, the petitioner and other accused persons had been to the forest and during that time, the deceased and the informant had intercepted them and suddenly, at that moment, under the circumstances narrated, the petitioner said to have fired the gun shot. There has been nothing brought to the notice of the Court as to if the petitioner had any enmity with the deceased or informant, for that matter. Rather, it is made to suggest that the petitioner since was detained by the informant and deceased at the time when they had gone to the forest for hunting purpose, suddenly, on the spur of the moment, he fired the gunshot. From the statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of one of the co-accused persons, it is revealed that they had taken alcohol sometime before the alleged occurrence. So, therefore, presupposing that the petitioner was in a drunken state, it is claimed that though the alleged incident took place but it was without any motive or intention. Having regard to the circumstances under which the incident happened and one of the forest officials succumbed to the injury received due to gunshot fired, which is so unfortunate and taking into account the fact that there is no evidence on record to show any kind of ill-motive or premeditation or any plan on the part of the petitioner to commit the mischief which suddenly took place, the Court is of the considered view that he should enlarged on bail. That apart, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for nearly two years and till date, there has been no charge framed and there is most unlikely that the trial is to commence and also concluded in near future. In other words, the Court is of the view that having regard to the Page 3 of 4 totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner should be allowed to go on bail subject to conditions. 6. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the petition stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 130 of 2021 corresponding to S.T. Case No.13 of 2022 pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the said court which shall impose such other conditions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the following, such as, he shall not administer any kind of threat to the informant and other material witnesses or influence them in any manner whatsoever, while on bail. 8. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2023 12:21:13 Page 4 of 4