The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.5528 of 2024 Jayadev Sahoo @ Chikuna Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Bidyalok Mohapatra State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Smt. Siva Mohanty, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 12.12.2024 Order No. 03. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Party. Perused the case diary as well as the statements of the witnesses and other materials on record. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Niali P.S. Case No.424 of 2023, corresponding to S.T. Case No.83 of 2024, pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (LR & LTV), Cuttack, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC. 4. The prosecution case as culled out from the FIR, in short, is that the complainant lodged an FIR before the Niali Police Station in Cuttack District on 03.12.2023 alleging that one Arup Sahoo, S/o. Page 1 of 4. Pravakar Sahoo called her husband (the deceased) for calculation of paddy cutter machine money. Thereafter, the deceased along with the driver-Sanjay Pradhan and Arup Sahoo calculated the money till 10:00 P.M. When the deceased did not return to his residence, the complainant-wife contacted the above named persons and inquired about her husband (the deceased). She was informed that her husband (the deceased) shall return only after they were done with the calculation. After a while the complainant again contacted the above named persons about her husband, she was informed that her husband had left 15 minutes ago. Since, her husband had not returned home, the complainant-wife went to the spot and found that the persons, namely, Hrudananda Sahoo, Tanubala Sahoo and Birabar Sahoo of the village were working there. Thereafter, not finding her husband, the complainant came back from the spot. When the complainant asked Arup Sahoo whereabouts of her husband, the said accused did not give any specific reply. The complainant, despite her best efforts to trace out her husband, was unsuccessful in her attempt. On the basis of the suspicion that the above named accused persons, including the present Petitioner might have killed her husband, the complainant lodged the FIR before the Police. 5. Further, it is stated that in course of investigation the accused persons have made confessional statements and they have admitted their guilt. Thereafter, they have taken into custody and have been languishing in custody since 09.12.2023. 6. Initially the Petitioner moved the learned Court in seisin over the matter for release on bail, however, the learned Court in seisin over the matter, vide order dated 22.05.2024 rejected the bail application of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved of such order of Page 2 of 4. rejection, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present bail application. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. He further contended that merely basing on the statement of some of the witnesses, who have stated that they had seen the Petitioner while working, that the present Petitioner has been implicated. He further submitted that confessional statement of the accused before the Police Authorities cannot be used as evidence against the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that there are no direct materials on record to implicate the present Petitioner in the present crime. On such grounds, he contended that the Petitioner be released on bail on any stringent terms and conditions. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail. She contended that the Petitioner has already admitted about the crime and his confessional statement has already been recorded. It was further submitted that there are other materials on record to corroborate the confessional statement of the accused-Petitioner. She further submitted that taking into consideration of the seriousness and gravity of the allegation and the magnitude of the crime the Petitioner should not be enlarged on bail at this juncture. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, and on perusal of the statement of the witnesses, this Court is of the observations that it is an admitted fact that there are no eye Page 3 of 4. witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Moreover, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police is not admissible as evidence and the same cannot be used against the present Petitioner. Additionally, on a close scrutiny of the materials on record, this Court observes that other than the confessional statement of the accused, there are no materials on record to directly implicate the present Petitioner. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, further keeping in view the period of custodial detention of the Petitioner, and the fact that the final charge-sheet has already been filed and there are no eye witnesses to the occurrences, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. It is further observed that, the observations and remarks made hereinabove are confined to only the consideration of the bail application of the Petitioner. It is directed that the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove while conducting the trial and the trial shall be conducted only on the basis of the evidences recorded in course of the trial. 12. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. S.K. Rout Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Dec-2024 16:37:59 Page 4 of 4. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge