The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.3564 OF 2024 Deepak Behera @ Kalia …. Petitioner State of Odisha Represented By Adv. -Mr. Biswabhusan Das. -versus- …. Opposite Party Represented By Adv. -Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA. BLAPL NO.2506 OF 2024 Rabindra Sahoo @ Manguli @ Mangulia …. Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. -Mr. Basanta Kumar Das. -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Represented By Adv. -Ms.Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA.
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA ORDER 25.11.2024 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (Virtual/ Physical) mode. 2. Since both the bail applications have arisen out of G.R. Case No.1051 of 2023 in connection with Salepur P.S. Case No.331 of 2023, then both the bail applications are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common order. 3. I have already heard from the learned Counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. The Petitioners are facing trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions judge, Salepur in S.T. Case No.24 of 2024 arising out of Salepur P.S. Case No.33 of 2023 having been Page 1 of 5 charged under Section-302/307/120-B/201 read with 34 of the IPC, 1860 on the allegations alleged against them (Petitioners) that, on dated 04.10.2023 mid night at about 12.30 AM, the three co- accuseds of the Petitioners i.e. Dhanua @ Bharat Prusty, Muna @ Laxmidhar Sahoo, Tikina @ Birakishore Sahoo entered into the shop of the deceaseds from three sides on being armed with weapons, when the deceased, Hari Prusty and his wife Annapurna Prusty were sleeping inside their shop, but suddenly, the co- accused of the Petitioners i.e. Dhanua @ Bharat Prusty assaulted on the head of the deceased-Hari Prusty by means of a tangia and then the wife of the deceased-Hari Prusty i.e. Annapurna Prusty woke up and tried to raise hullah, for which another co-accused of the Petitioners i.e. Muna @ Laxmidhar Sahoo assaulted Annapurna Prusty. At that time, these two Petitioners Kalia @ Deepak Behera and Manguli @ Mangulia @ Rabindra Sahoo were standing outside the shop of the deceaseds and were watching the movements of others and soon after the incident, the above three co-accused persons of the Petitioners fled away from the spot and by the result of such assault of Dhanua @ Bharat Prusty on Hari Prusty on his head through tangia, he (Hari Prusty) expired there at the spot on being succumbed to the injuries. Due to the assault on the wife of Hari Prusty i.e. Annapurna Prusty, she (Annapurna Prusty) sustained severe injuries, for which, she was taken to the CHC, Salepur for the treatment of her injuries and from there, she was shifted to SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack; wherein she (Annapurna Prusty) expired on being succumbed to the injuries. Before death of the deceased-Annapurna Prusty, the son of the deceased had lodged the F.I.R. and basing upon such F.I.R., case was registered and investigation was started. Page 2 of 5 During investigation, these Petitioners along with their co- accused persons i.e. Dhanua @ Bharat Prusty, Muna@ Laxmidhar Sahoo and Tikina @ Birakishore Sahoo were arrested and forwarded to the Court on 07.10.2023 and accordingly since then, they (Petitioners) are in jail custody. 5. During the staying of the Petitioners and their co-accused persons inside the jail, the charge-sheet has been submitted against them on dated 02.02.2024 under the above sections after completion of the investigation and the case against them (Petitioners) has already been committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salepur; wherein the Petitioners and their above three co-accused persons are facing trial having been charged under Section-302/307/120-B/201 read with 34 of the IPC, 1960. 6. As per the submissions of the learned Counsels for the Petitioners, till yet, only three witnesses have been examined before the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution as P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. 7. The learned Counsels for the Petitioners submitted for liberal consideration of their bail contending that, these two Petitioners have not all participated in the alleged incident in assaulting any of the deceaseds, because as per the story of the prosecution, they (Petitioners) had not entered into the spot shop room, to which, the learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently objected contending that, as the Petitioners had participated in the alleged criminal conspiracy for commission murder of the deceaseds and in prosecution of their such criminal conspiracy, the decaaseds have been murdered, for which, they (Petitioners) should not be allowed to go on bail. Page 3 of 5 8. It is the settled propositions of law that, “bail by its very nature in person-specific. In case, when offences are committed by more than one accused person, then the individual role played by each of them is to be taken into account, while considering, whether to admit a particular accused to go on bail or not”. 9. When it is the case of the prosecution that, these two Petitioners have not entered into the spot shop room and when these Petitioners have not at all participated in assaulting the deceaseds at the spot and when there is no allegation of the prosecution against the Petitioners that, they (Petitioners) were armed with any weapon and when the death of the deceaseds are the outcome of the assault of their co-accused persons, but not due to the assault of the Petitioners, and when the above three co- accused persons of the Petitioners are the principal culprits of the alleged incident of double murder, then at this juncture, by taking the above factors into account, it is felt proper to allow them (Petitioners) to go on bail with stringent conditions, as they (Petitioners) are not the participants of the alleged assaults on the deceaseds. 10. Hence, both the bail applications filed by the Petitioners are allowed. Therefore, both the bail applications filed by the Petitioners are allowed. They (Petitioners) are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with conditions that:- (i) they (Petitioners) shall not involve with any crime in future. Page 4 of 5 (ii) they (Petitioners) shall appear personally before the Trial Court in S.T. Case No. 24 of 2024 on each and every date of adjournment of the case during trial till its conclusion without fail. (iii) they (Petitioners) shall not terrorize, coerce, influence or threat any witnesses of the prosecution including the informant and any of his family members either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever at any stage of the proceeding of the case. (iv) they (Petitioners) shall appear before the IIC, Salepur Police Station on each Sunday once till the conclusion of the trial of the case, but in case of their failure to comply any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Court in seisin over the matter is authorized to cancel their respective bail orders outrightly without seeking any permission for the same from this Court. 11. Accordingly, both the bail applications filed by the Petitioners are disposed of finally with a copy to the IIC, Salepur Police Station for his information and report before the trial Court in case of violation of any of the conditions by any of the Petitioners. 12. Grant certified copy of this order to the Petitioners on their proper application. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Nov-2024 18:27:22 Page 5 of 5