Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPLNo.4956 of 2024 Prakash Behera ……. Petitioner (s) Mr. Niranjan Panda, Adv. -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. M.K. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
ORDER 17.12.2024 Order No. 04. F.I.R. No. Dated Police Station 0297/2023 28.08.2023 Boudh Sections Section302 of I.P.C. Case No. and Courts’ Name P.S. Case No. 297 of 2023 pending in the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Boudh. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 3. The petitioner, who is currently in custody in connection with C.T. Case No. 301/2023, corresponding to Session Trial No.02/2024, arising out of Boudh P.S. Case No. 297/2023, pending in the Court of the Learned District & Session Judge,Boudh, registered for the alleged commission of offenses under Section 302 of the IPC. 4. The petitioner had previously sought bail, which was rejected by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Boudh. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner has now approached this Court by filing the present application seeking bail. 5. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the informant, Sanuj Kumar Pradhan, the son-in-law of the deceased, reported the matter to the police. According to the FIR, local people informed the informant that the accused had killed his father-in-law using an axe. Based on this report, the FIR was lodged, and the police commenced an investigation into the alleged murder. 6. During the investigation, the police recovered the murder weapon, a Tangia, based on the accused’s statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The inquest report corroborated the accused’s involvement. The post-mortem confirmed death by haemorrhage and shock, with ante-mortem injuries caused by a sharp weapon. Statements from the informant and other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 witnesses further supported the allegations. The charge-sheet filed by the police presents a prima facie case against the accused, with evidence indicating his involvement in the crime. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He argues that there is no evidence to support the claims made in the FIR, such as hostility between the petitioner and the deceased or involvement in the crime. 8. The petitioner refutes submits thatthe police claim that he confessed to the crime and led to the discovery of the weapon (Tangia). He asserts that the statements made by the police are false and fabricated. 9. The petitioner further submits that he does not have any criminal antecedents, that the investigation is ongoing, and that he has a permanent residence within the jurisdiction, so there is no risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding if granted bail. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petitioner’s release on bail, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offenses alleged. It is contended the accused’s involvement in a heinous crime, namely murder, necessitates the denial of bail, as such offences impact society significantly and require strict legal measures. There is a possibility of the accused tampering with the prosecution witnesses during the trial. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 Considering the seriousness of the crime, this particular risk cannot be ruled out. 11. Now, it is well established that in bail jurisprudence that courts must exercise caution at the stage of granting bail, as it is sufficient to assess whether a prima facie case exists, without delving into detailed reasoning on the merits of the case that may prejudice the accused. It is adequate for the bail order to reflect the factors considered by the Court in extending such relief to the accused. 12. In Ajwar v. Waseem,1 the Supreme Court has observed as following: “28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three-Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.” 13. While examining the case records, it prima facie appears that during the investigation, material emerged implicating the petitioner and co-accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The FIR identified the accused as the author of the crime, and the police recovered the weapon used in the murder (a Tangia), which was seized based on the accused’s statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 14. The post-mortem report confirmed that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock, and the injuries were consistent with the use of a sharp cutting weapon. This supported the case that the murder was committed with deliberate intent and in a manner consistent with the charges. Furthermore, the informant and other witnesses corroborated the details of the crime, strengthening the case against the accused. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 15. While this Court is ever mindful of the profound sanctity of personal liberty, an inalienable right of every individual, there is an equally compelling obligation to weigh, with due diligence, the gravity of the charges levelled against the accused. In the delicate task of granting bail, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the seriousness of the accusations nor can it ignore the underlying facts that inform the case. It is not enough for the charges to appear trivial, unfounded, or vexatious; they must be grounded in substance. When these allegations are buttressed by credible evidence, sufficient to lead a reasonable mind to a prima facie conclusion of their veracity, the Court must temper its liberality with caution. 16. In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, the Supreme Court while reviewing an appeal concerning the cancellation of bail, outlined several important factors that a court must consider when deciding whether to grant bail. The Court emphasized that while an exhaustive list of criteria cannot be provided, the central principle for granting bail is that the decision must stem from a careful and judicious exercise of the court’s discretion. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "17 .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 21991 Supp (2) SCC 133 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Dec-2024 17:44:02 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 hardandfast 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." 17. Keeping in mind the abovementioned precedent, it must be noted that to grant bail in such circumstances would risk undermining the integrity of the judicial process, potentially exposing witnesses to intimidation and allowing the accused to flee from justice. Bail, as a privilege, must be denied where the facts and circumstances suggest a genuine risk to the course of justice, and where the evidence presented suggests that the accused may have committed an offense that strikes at the very foundation of societal order. 18. Considering the submissions made and taking into account a comprehensive view of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, including the grave nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 19. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed. ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge