The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 05. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Srinibas @ Srinibasa Swain (In BLAPL No.6625 of 2024) Arabinda Swain (In BLAPL No.3116 of 2025) … Petitioners Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate (for BLAPL No.6625 of 2024) Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate (for BLAPL No.3116 of 2025) State of Orissa -versus- … Opposite Party Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 23.06.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these two 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. This is an application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Khuntuni PS Case No.37 of 2024 arising out of CT Case No.132 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Athagarh, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 147/148/323/302/294/506/149/109/34 of IPC, on the allegation of rioting with deadly weapons and assaulting the deceased Susanta Rana and thereafter, running over Page 1 of 5 the deceased to death through a tractor by co-accused Nirakar Swain in prosecution of their common object. 4. Heard, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned senior counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Satya Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.3116 of 2025 and Mr. Pravas Chandra Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.6625 of 2024 and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 5. At the outset Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel submits by reiterating the prosecution story that the deceased came to the spot, where some of the villagers including the petitioners were sitting on a culvert and there was a scuffle between the deceased and the said group in which the said group assaulted, but thereafter, one Nirakar Swain who out of his own, brought out a tractor from his house and tried to run over the deceased, however, the deceased jumped to a rivulet(Nala), but the said person ran over the deceased in the said rivulet through his tractor as a result the deceased succumbed to injury and this story, however, definitely makes the case of the petitioner distinguishable from the assailant Nirakar Swain who drove the tractor and killed the deceased and there cannot be any prosecution of common object by the petitioners and others to kill the deceased, rather it is the unilateral act of the co-accused Nirakar Swain and, therefore, the petitioners having not participated in running over the deceased cannot be made liable for committing murder of Page 2 of 5 the deceased in prosecution of their common object and at best, on consideration of prosecution allegation, a case of simple assault would be made out against the petitioners who have already been custody for more than one year and four months. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohapatra prays to grant bail to the Petitioners. Further, Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, also while adopting the submission of Mr. Mohapatra, submits that initially a case of accident was registered and, therefore, no role can be attributed to the petitioners for killing the deceased and they may be, accordingly, considered for grant of bail by taking their case leniently. 6 Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, without disputing the story as reiterated by Mr. Mohapatra, submits that the petitioners’ names find place in the FIR and they have also instigated the co-accused to run over the deceased and thereby, they are liable for killing the deceased with the aid of Section 149 which is made applicable for prosecution of common object. Mr. Satpathy, accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioners. 7. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of the record, there appears allegation against the petitioners for assaulting the deceased, but the deceased has suffered a death in this case, however, the main allegation of running over the deceased through a tractor is directed against co-accused Nirakar Swain who is not a petitioner in this case and the main allegation against the petitioners and others who are Page 3 of 5 around 15 named accused and 5 to 10 others is for assaulting the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are in custody since 16.02.2024 and charge- sheet has already been submitted in this case. 8. In view of the above facts and keeping in view the role as alleged against the petitioners and taking into account their pre-trial custody period of the Petitioners, this Court without expressing any view on merit admits each of the petitioner to bail. 9. Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Srinibas @ Srinibasa Swain in BLAPL No.6625 of 2024 and Arabinda Swain, in BLAPL No.3116 of 2025 stand allowed and each of the petitioners is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail, (ii) the petitioners in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date fail unless their of posting without attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioners fail without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioners for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law, Page 4 of 5 (iii) the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating their present address of stay to the concerned Court, the the shall petitioners report (iv) Jurisdictional attendance before Police Station once fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of their release from the custody. in a The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioners unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated. It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioners in future for similar/grave offences on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail in this case. 10. 11. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2025 20:24:23 Jayakrushna (G. Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5