The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3204 of 2023 Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Behera …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate(Injured) BLAPL No.2501 of 2023 Suvendra Parida @ Lipu …. Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate(Injured) BLAPL No.3205 of 2023 Ramakanta Behera …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate(Injured) // 2 // BLAPL No.3206 of 2023 Priyabrata Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate(Injured) BLAPL No.3352 of 2023 Raja @ Bibekananda Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Mulia, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opp. Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate(Injured) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 28.07.2023 Order No. BLAPL No.3204 of 2023, 2501 of 2023, 3205 of 2023, 3206 of 2023 & BLAPL No. 3352 of 2023 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Since these five bail applications of the Petitioner No.1-Raju@Rajendra Prasad Behera in BLAPL No.3204 of 2023, Petitioner No.2- Suvendra Parida@ Lipu in BLAPL No.2501 of 2023, Petitioner No.3-Ramakanta // 3 // Behera in BLAPL No.3205 of 2023, Petitioner No.4- Priyabrata Pradhan in BLAPL No.3206 of 2023 and the Petitioner No.5-Raja @ Bibekananda Sahoo in BLAPL No. 3352 of 2023 arise out of one and same case record, these bail applications are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. These are bail applications U/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Motanga P.S. Case No.04 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.05 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned JMFC(CT), Dhenkanal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457/395/397 of IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act, on the allegation of committing dacoity along with others by seriously assaulting the injured on his leg and hand by means of different weapon of offence. 4. In the course of hearing of the bail application Mr. S.R.Mulia, learned counsel for the Petitioner at the inception, submits that the Petitioner No.1 Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Behera has no criminal antecedent to his credit, whereas Petitioner No.2 Suvendra Parida @ Lipu although had a case U/S. 395 of IPC, but he had already been acquitted there from and the Petitioner No.3 Ramakanta Behera is having one case of 307 of IPC whereas, Petitioners No. 4 & 5 Priyabrata Pradhan and Raja @ Bibekananda Sahoo are having three // 4 // criminal cases to their credit, but in none of these cases, they have been found implicated for any property offence or dacoity. He further submits that the Petitioners have been detained in custody since 7th January, 2023 and in the meanwhile, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already submitted in this case. It is further submitted by him that all the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have no role in the assault of the injured, but reason best known to the injured, the Petitioners have been implicated in this case. On the aforesaid submission, learned counsel prays to grant bail to the Petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Mr.S.S.Pradhan, learned AGA, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioners by drawing attention of the Court that three blood stained iron rods were recovered from the vehicle of the Petitioners and the Petitioners were alleged to have assaulted the injured by means of such weapon of offences and the injury report of the injured clearly establishes the assault made by the Petitioners and the Petitioners, therefore, should not be granted bail. 6. Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel appearing for the injured strongly opposes the bail application of the Petitioners and he submits inter alia, due to assault of the Petitioners, the injured is yet to be recovered and // 5 // the treating Doctor has furnished an opinion that the injured has suffered some temporary disability and the injured will take some more time, at least for one year with further surgeries to fully recover. It is further submitted that in case the Petitioners were granted bail, they would again repeat the offence and there is every chance and likelihood that the Petitioners would interfere in the trial also by tampering the prosecution witnesses. In summing up his argument, Mr. Chand prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioners. 7. After having considered the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the Petitioners and keeping in view the pre trial detention of the Petitioners since 07.01.2023 and the progress of investigation with submission of charge-sheet and taking into account the nature of injury sustained by the injured and last but not the least, bail is the principle of law, but jail is the exception and further taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court admits the Petitioners to bail. 8. Hence, the bail application of the Petitioners stands allowed and each of the Petitioners are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as // 6 // deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail (ii) the Petitioners shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance is dispensed with (iii) the Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case (iv) the Petitioners shall report attendance before the jurisdiction Police Station once in a week preferably on Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of his release from the custody. (v) The Petitioners shall not in any way try to contact family members either personally or through any other mode. injured or his the The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the Petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case is at liberty to cancel the bail of the Petitioners without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the Petitioners in future for grave and serious offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. // 7 // Violation of any of the conditions would be construed as misuse of concession of bail granted to the Petitioners today by this Court and in case of such violations, the Injured-Informant is also at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per 9. 10. Rules. Priyajit (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 29-Jul-2023 11:08:51