The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.3490 of 2024 ..... Petitioners 1) B.K. Bisheswar Sadangi @ Akash 2) Mrutunjay Sethi @ Dengabalia State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Devashis Panda Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – D.Nayak, AGA Order No. 03.
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 06.08.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioners for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 524 of 2023, arising out of Khordha Model P.S. Case No.351 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Khordha for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 302, 506, 120-B of IPC & Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 4. The case of the prosecution story in a nut shell is that one Bhanumati Bhujabala reported in writing that on 07.06.2023 at around 9pm when she was purchasing edible oil, she saw that her nephews Somnath Bhujabala @ Pakku and Sunil and, Minati, her sister-in-law, Page 1 of 5. were standing near Thengahat chhak when one Sanju and four of his associates suddenly alighted from a pick-up van and Sanju took out a firearm from his waist and opened fire on Somanth Bhujabala @ Pakku and also directed his associates to shoot at him and others. They opened fire at the deceased who tried to escape but, having sustained gunshot injuries on his waist, stomach and hands, fell down injured. As the locals raised hulla, the assailants fled away from the spot after having threatened everyone present with dire consequences if the matter was reported to the police. The injured was shifted to SUM Ultimate Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 09.06.2023. It has been alleged that the incident arose out of a previous enmity between the co- accused Sanju and the deceased. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are in custody since 14.07.2023. He further contended that in the meantime the investigation has been concluded and final charge sheet has been filed. Further, referring to the prosecution case, he submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 07.06.2023. Thereafter, one of the accused, namely, Sanju @ Sanjay Pradhan was arrested on 13.07.2023. On the basis of the confessional statement of the above named accused person, the present petitioners have been implicated in the present crime and they have been arrested thereafter. 6. Further, referring to the prosecution case, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the evidence collected so far by the prosecution, the consistent case of the prosecution is that one Amjad Khan was driving a Bolero Car in which the accused Minati was sitting besides the driver. He further contended that in the dala of the pick-up van accused persons namely, Sanju @ Sanjay Pradhan, Sahitya Behera, Sidhu @ Santosh Sethi, Gedabalia @ Balaram were present. On getting the information with regard to the location of the deceased, the accused persons reached at the spot and they fired gunshots at the deceased from Page 2 of 5. the vehicle. As a result, the deceased was injured and was taken to the hospital. While he was undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 09.06.2023. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that even taking into consideration the statement of the co-accused persons, the present accused persons have not been implicated by the co-accused. He further submitted that the present Petitioners have been implicated as co-conspirators with the aid of section 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that there are no specific materials to implicate the present petitioners in the conspiracy of the murder. He further submitted that although the present petitioners are having several criminal antecedents, however, in most of the cases they are on bail. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event they are released on bail. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the present petitioners are co-conspirators and they have conspired along with other co-accused persons far committing murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the trial has not commenced and many of the witnesses are yet to be examined. He further contended that the conspiracy theory is likely to be unfurled in the course of recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it would not be prudent to release the petitioners at this juncture. He further contended that Petitioner No.1 is having 10 criminal antecedents and the Petitioner No.2 is having 13 criminal antecedents. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the release of the petitioners at this juncture is uncalled for and such release would hinder the case of the prosecution and might lead to the trial being stymied an linger unnecessarily. Page 3 of 5. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts, as well as materials on record along with the case diary and statement of the witnesses, this Court observes that although there are some eye witnesses to the occurrence, however, none of the eye witnesses have specifically implicated the present Petitioners, especially with regard to the presence of the petitioners at the spot of occurrence. Additionally, with regard to the allegation of conspiracy and the role of the present petitioners in such conspiracy, no such clinching evidence is comingforth at this stage. Further, the materials on record clearly indicate the involvement of the accused Amjad, Minati, Sanju, Sahitya, Sidhu and Gedabalia, however, the involvement of the present petitioners is not supported by any concrete material. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties and the materials on record, this Court deems it proper to release the Petitioners on bail, however, taking into consideration the criminal antecedent of the present petitioners, such release shall be subject to the imposition of stringent conditions. 10. Hence, it is directed that the Petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the petitioners shall be subject to the following conditions:- I. II. shall not indulge in any criminal activities while on bail; shall not make any attempt to tamper with prosecution evidence or threaten, gain over or influence any of the prosecution witnesses; III. shall not default in attending the court during trial on each date of posting; IV. shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without Page 4 of 5. prior permission of the trial court; and V. shall appear before the local Police Station preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1 P.M. once in a fortnight till conclusion of trial. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail an automatic cancellation of the bail application 11. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Aug-2024 19:05:11 Page 5 of 5.