✦ High Court of India

The High Court

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Dilu Bhoi @ Dilu Kumar Bhoi (In BLAPL No.4982 of 2024) Kedarnath Palei @ Golei & Others (In BLAPL No.6723 of 2024) Sunil Palei @ Geda @ Dalei & Another (In BLAPL No.6778 of 2024) Pramod Bhoi (In BLAPL No.8422 of 2024) Kalandi Bhoi (In BLAPL No.9399 of 2024) … Petitioners Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R.N. Mohanty, Advocate & Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate (for BLAPL Nos.6723, 6778 & 8422 of 2024) Mr. A.K. Subudhi, Advocate (for BLAPL Nos.4982 and 9399 of 2024) -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 02.05.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these four bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and

Decision

disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. On the withdrawal memo filed in this case, the bail application of Petitioner No.1-Kedarnath Palei @ Golei Page 1 of 5 Order No. 05. and Petitioner No.4 Balaram Palei @ Golei in BLAPL No.6723 of 2024 stand disposed of as withdrawn and such bail application is confined only to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 namely Nabakishore Palei @ Gandu and Bideshi Palei @ Nanda. 3. These bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Balipatna PS Case No.160 of 2024 arising out of GR Case No.541 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned JMFC(O), Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/S. 341/323/324/302/120-B & 34 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Akshaya Kumar Majhi, the husband of the informant, along with co- accused persons by entering into a conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention. 4. Heard, Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Rabi Narayan Mohanty and Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos.6723, 6778, 8422 of 2024; Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, learned counsel for the Petitioners in BLAPL Nos.4982 and 9399 of 2024; and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 5. It is, however, argued on behalf of the Petitioners that there is in fact no eye witnesses to the occurrence, but one Fusi, who is stated to be eye witness to the occurrence is an afterthought one which can be very much perceived by his statement, which has been recorded on 23.12.2024 after around nine months of the Page 2 of 5 occurrence and thereby, such witness cannot be considered to be eye witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted by Mr. Sarangi, that co-accused Sanjukta Dei @ Palei and Ramamani standing on similar footing have already been granted bail, but the Petitioners are languishing in jail custody and no witnesses including the informant are turning up in the trial of the present case. It is also submitted by Mr. Sarangi that there were eleven numbers of injuries on the deceased, but only injury 5 to 8 were fatal to the deceased and even if the materials placed on record are taken into consideration, number of persons being involved in this case, no individual liability can be fastened on any of the Petitioners for killing the deceased. It is also submitted by him that one sharp cutting weapon and one lathi were recovered at the instance of co-accused(Kalandi Bhoi) pursuant to his disclose statement and thereby, everybody cannot be held to be liable for the offences. In summing up his argument, learned Senior Counsel prays to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. On the other hand, Mr. Subudhi, however, echoing with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Petitioner Dilu Bhoi @ Dilu Kumar Bhoi and Kalandi Bhoi, having no role to play in this case and they having detained in custody for substantial period, may kindly be granted bail. 5.1. On the other hand Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by relying upon the statement of the informant submits that the deceased had made oral Page 3 of 5 dying declaration before the informant stating the names of all these Petitioners to be perpetrator of the crime and, therefore, dying declaration being admissible in law, it can certainly be said that there is prima facie case against all these petitioners for committing murder of the deceased. Mr M.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the aforesaid submission prays to reject the bail applications of the petitioners. 8. After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence as alleged against the Petitioners vis-(cid:224)-vis the accusation sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the mode, manner and the circumstances under which the crime had been committed and taking into account the supporting materials collected by the Investigating Agency and regard being had to the oral dying declaration of the deceased before his wife(Informant) indicating the names of these Petitioners and taking into account the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to each the Petitioners. Hence, the bail applications of the Petitioners Dilu Bhoi @ Dilu Kumar Bhoi in BLAPL No.4982 of 2024; Nabakishore Palei @ Gandu Golei & Bidesh Palei @ Nanda in BLAPL No.6723 of 2024; Sunil Palei @ Geda @ Dalei & Kalandi Palei in BLAPL No.6778 of 2024; Pramod Bhoi in BLAPL No.8422 of 2024 and Kalandi Bhoi in BLAPL No.9399 of 2024 stand rejected. In view of the alternative oral prayer as advanced for Page 4 of 5 the petitioner, the trial be expedited, if there is no legal impediment. 6. Accordingly, the BLAPL Nos.4982, 6723, 6778, 8422 and 9399 of 2024 stand disposed of. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Court for compliance. (G. Satapathy) Judge Jayakrushna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-May-2025 16:01:31 Page 5 of 5

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments