The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6026 of 2024 Sankar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr.Rabi Narayan Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha …. Opp. Party -versus- Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 16.01.2025 1. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Puri Sea Beach P.S. Case No.216 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1982 of 2022 further corresponding to S.T. Case No.19/305 of 2023 for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, pending in the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri. The petitioner had approached the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No.19/305 of 2023 praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 02.05.2024 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Page 1 of 5 Order No. 06. petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 22.09.2022, the complainant lodged a written report at Konark P.S. alleging therein that, on 21.09.2022, he found the present petitioner forcibly dragging his wife into an abandoned building at Gopala Ballav Road. Subsequently, the complainant got information that his wife was dead and laying down on the floor of the said abandoned building at Gopala Ballav Road. Hence, the F.I.R. 4. The vital witnesses Gobinda Rout (P.W.1), Trilochan Bahinipati (P.W.9) and Ashok Kumar Rout (P.W.2) have already been examined in the present case apart from the other official witnesses. The said three witnesses, those who have been cited as vital/prime witnesses by the prosecution, have not supported the prosecution case. 5. P.W.9-Trilochan in his examination-in-chief has stated as under: “1. I am the informant of this case. I do not know Page 2 of 5 the accused. I do not know the deceased. I do not know anything about the death of the deceased. Two years back on one day the deceased had died at Bali Nolia Sahi. On that day I was at house at about 11.00 AM I found one police van near my house, I went near the van and there from one Police personnel. I came to know about the death of the deceased. Then the police asked me to lodge one FIR as the place of occurrence is near to my shop. When I refused the police asked me what I know about the deceased then I replied that on the previous night at about 9.30 PM while I was closing my shop I have seen the deceased and another person going inside the abandoned house located near my shop. The police has told me that the said person was the husband of the deceased. Then police wrote one FIR and I have signed it. P-5/P.W.9 is the said FIR. P-5/P.W.9 is my signature on it.” P.W.1-Gobinda Rout has stated as under: “1. I know informant Trilochan Bahinipati. I do not recognize the accused present in the dock nor do I know deceased Sabitri Nayak. I do not know how she died. Police called me to the Police Station and asked me. But I had not stated anything to police.” P.W.2- Ashok Kumar Rout has stated as under: “2. One day, about one year back, around 1 P.M. to 2 P.M., the deceased was lying on the roof top of the second floor of a dilapidated house belonging to Puri Co-operative Society situated in front of Happy Home Lodge at Bali Nolia Sahi, Puri. At that time I was returning to my shop from my house. Seeing a gathering and presence of two police vehicles, I stopped and went to the roof top. Police verified the dead body, took photographs in my and also prepared presence. This the inquest report marked as Ext.P- 2 (P.W.2) and this is my signature therein marked as Ext.P-2/1(P.W.2).” the panchanama P.W.1 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and subjected to elaborated cross- Page 3 of 5 examination. However, nothing could be elucidated from his statement. Therefore, none of the witnesses on the shoulder of whom the prosecution case rest, have supported the prosecution. 6. The petitioner has been in custody since 24.09.2022. There are total 17 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 9 witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner has been in custody for more than two years. None of the vital witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The trial is likely to take a considerable time. 7. Regard being had to the fact that the trial will take a considerable time and the petitioner has been in custody for more two years, I am inclined to enlarge accused-Petitioner on bail. 8. Hence, the Petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions: (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Court diligently without fail, on every date of hearing; (2) He shall not influence any of the witnesses related to this case in any manner whatsoever; and Page 4 of 5 (3) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. In the event, the petitioner is found to be wanted for violation of any of the bail conditions imposed by this Court or the trial Court even on a single occasion, the prosecution is at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for cancellation of the concession of bail granted by this Court. If such application is filed, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit. 9. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 17-Jan-2025 14:46:00 Page 5 of 5