Kuna Jena v. State of Odisha

Mr.Pradipta Satpathy, ASC, Mr. S.K.Sejpada, Adv. (Informant) CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 12.05.2025 FIR No. 276 Dated Police Station Sections Case No. and Courts’ Name

17.03.2025 Bhanjanagar G.R. Case No.502 2025 pending the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar Sections- 331(4),324(4), 115(2),126(2), 109, 296, 74, 351(2), 3(5) of 2023 BNS, Sections- 4(1), 4(2) of Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act, 2013

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

The Petitioner being in custody in connection with Bhanjanagar P.S. Case No.276 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.502 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Sections- 331(4),324(4), 115(2),126(2), 109, 296, 74, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections- 4(1), 4(2) of Odisha Prevention of Witch Hunting Act, 2013 , has filed this petition for his release on bail.

The brief fact of the case is that on 02.03.2025 at about 10 P.M. the Petitioners and others broke open the door of the informant's house and attacked her. Informant's two sons fled from the back side of her house. The accused persons and other made the informant Kuni Sahu to drink the stool and urine and the informant. Out of fear, she consumed the same in bleeding condition. Police reached spot at 11.30 P.M. and admitted her to Bhanjanagar Medical. The informant Kuni Sahu had sustained severe injury on her head and since her condition was critical, she was shifted to MKCG MCH, Berhampur. Hence, this case.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has no way involved in these offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that nothing has been seized from the possession of the Petitioner and he being the law abiding citizen and the resident of the vicinity, there is least chance of avoiding the trial. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2025. Hence, he submits that, the prayer of the present Petitioner may be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the Informant vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the present Petitioner in view of the nature of allegations alleged against the Petitioner.

Considering the nature and gravity of accusations, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, their prayer for bail stands rejected.