Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 4991 of 2024 Niranjan Sahoo @ Babuni …. Petitioner (s) Mr. Biplab Kumar Dash, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 10. F.I.R. No. 0045
Decision
ORDER 13.03.2025 Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections 24.01.2024 Section 302 of the I.P.C. Courts’ Name G.R. Case No.73 of 2024 arising out of Dhamnagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Dhamnagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 73 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar and registered for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., has filed this petition seeking for his release on bail. Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 3. The facts, as disclosed in the First Information Report, reveal that on January 24, 2024, at 9:56 A.M., the complainant, Sudarsan Parida, approached Dhamnagar Police Station with a written report. He stated that on January 4, 2024, he had admitted his younger brother, Kedar Parida/ to the “Bastav Nisha Nibarana Center” for treatment. However/ on January 23, 2024, at approximately 5:00 P.M., he received a phone call from the center informing him that his brother was unwell. Shortly thereafter/ he was informed of his brother’s demise. Distressed by this news, the complainant, accompanied by other villagers, rushed to the center, where they found Kedar Parida deceased. Based on their observations and suspicions, they alleged that physical torture and severe assault inflicted at the center had caused Kedar Parida’s death, leading to the initiation of these proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, serving as a caretaker at the “Bastav Nisha Nibarana Kendra” has been falsely implicated and has no connection with the alleged offense. It was asserted that the center adhered to all requisite legal and technical standards for the de-addiction treatment provided to the complainant’s brother. Counsel further highlighted that the post-mortem report concluded that the deceased had succumbed to a “myocardial infarction” negating allegations of foul play. The petitioner/ who has been in custody since January 24, 2024, argues that with the charge sheet already filed, there is no justification for his continued detention. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on bail. Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 5. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the petitioner’s plea for bail with vigor, submitted that the mere filing of the charge sheet does not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting such relief. It was argued that the inquest report, FIR, post-mortem findings, seizure lists, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and other relevant materials on record unequivocally point to the petitioner’s unprofessional conduct as the caretaker of the center. Counsel further contended that the injuries observed on the deceased’s body could have precipitated a myocardial infarction or heart attack due to the severe pain inflicted. In light of these considerations, the State urged the Court to reject the petitioner’s bail application. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before the Court. 7. The determination of whether a case warrants the grant of bail requires a careful balancing of multiple factors, including the nature of the offense, the severity of the prescribed punishment, and a prima facie assessment of the accused’s involvement. There exists no rigid or inflexible formula for courts to apply when deciding bail applications; rather, each case must be assessed on its own merits. At the stage of considering bail, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed evaluation of the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as that remains the domain of trial. However, the court must examine whether prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused has committed the offense and, upon weighing Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 all relevant considerations, whether the continued custody of the accused advances the interests of the criminal justice system. 8. Furthermore, when bail has been denied by a lower court, an appellate court must exercise restraint in interfering with such an order and must be guided by well established principles governing the power to set aside bail. 9. The principles governing this Court’s assessment of the correctness of an order granting bail by the High Court were succinctly articulated in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1. In that case, the accused was facing trial for an offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite multiple bail applications being dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the High Court subsequently allowed the bail application. In setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court, delivering the judgment for a two- judge Bench of the Court, expounded on the legal principles and held as follows: “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 in the event of (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. … 12. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal…” 10. Likewise, such view was also resonated by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 wherein it was held as follows: “While granting bail, the relevant considerations are: (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.” 2 1991 Supp (2) SCC 133. Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 11. The abovementioned precedents make it amply clear that the grant of bail in cases involving serious offenses such as Section 302 IPC requires a judicious and cautious approach. The nature of the allegations, gravity of the offense, severity of punishment, and prima facie involvement of the accused must all be carefully weighed before granting such relief. The courts must remain vigilant against any decision that may inadvertently undermine the administration of justice or allow interference with the investigation. 12. Rehabilitation centers are meant to be places of care and renewal, but too often, they become sites of quiet suffering. Behind closed doors, where patients seek refuge from addiction, there is sometimes neglect, coercion, and even violence. The line between discipline and abuse blurs. The vulnerable, already struggling with dependency, find themselves subjected to harsh treatment under the guise of therapy. Walls meant to protect instead confine, stripping them of dignity. What should be a path to recovery instead becomes a place where silence hides cruelty, and pain is mistaken for progress. 13. This case brings these concerns into sharp focus. The deceased was admitted to Bastav Nisha Nibarana Kendra with the hope of reclaiming his life but did not leave the facility alive. The allegations go beyond negligence and suggest mistreatment. While the post mortem report attributes the cause of death to a myocardial infarction, the presence of multiple injuries cannot be ignored. The circumstances surrounding his death raise serious concerns about the conditions within the center and Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2025 17:54:08 whether the treatment he received contributed to his suffering rather than his recovery. 14. Given the seriousness of the offense, the prima facie involvement of the Petitioner, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court finds no justification for interfering with the order rejecting bail. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this BLAPL stands dismissed. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Page 7 of 7