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: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6433 of 2024 Ananta Dhal @ Bhima …. Petitioner (s) Represented By Mr. Devashish Panda, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 07. F.I.R. No. 262
Decision
ORDER 22.11.2024 Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections 05.11.2019 Brajraj Nagar C.T. (Sessions) Courts’ Name 2020 the in case No. 32 of pending court of learned Addl. and Judge, Jharsuguda District Sessions Sections 302,120-B of I.P.C. read 25,27 with of Arms Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner, who is currently in custody in connection with Brajraj Nagar P.S. Case No.262/2019 corresponding to C.T. (Sessions) Case No.32/2020, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 Sections 302, 120-B of IPC read with Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, has filed this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail. 4. The petitioner was initially taken into custody and subsequently granted bail pursuant to this Court’s order dated 05.04.2023 passed in BLAPL No.12039/2022. However, during the bail period, the petitioner was arrested on 26.11.2023 in connection with a separate case registered as Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No.316/2023. 5. In view of this subsequent development, the prosecution filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, seeking cancellation of bail in C.T.(Sessions) Case No.32/2020. The said application was allowed on 19.02.2024 and the petitioner is still in custody since then. 6. Following this/ the petitioner’s application for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has now filed the present application for release on bail. 7. The prosecution’s case/ in brief/ is that while the informant/ Priya Ghosh, was travelling to Cuttack by train, she received information at Jharsuguda that the petitioner, along with six others, had surrounded her younger brother-in-law, Mantu Ghosh, and fired two rounds at his head. Upon receiving this information, the informant immediately rushed to the hospital, where she found her brother-in-law to have died. Believing that the accused persons had conspired to murder her brother- Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 in-law, she lodged the F.I.R. dated 05.11.2019, for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 302 of IPC read with Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, in Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No. 262 of 2019. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has already been in custody for over 2 years and 4 months, from 08.11.2019 to 05.04.2022, and again since 19.02.2024, for over 4 months. Furthermore, he has complied with the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to present any evidence of a violation of the bail conditions and has relied solely on the petitioner’s involvement in another case. 9. The petitioner further submits that the cases against him, particularly Brajrajnagar P.S. Case Nos.115/2023 and 316/2023, were based on misunderstandings, and relief was granted by this Court, which directed that no coercive action be taken against him. Regarding the alleged non-compliance with police attendance requirements, the petitioner submits that there was no specific endorsement mandated in the order. The petitioner further submits that his continued detention is unjustified as out of 44 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 10 have been examined, and none of them have supported the prosecution’s case. In light of the foregoing, the petitioner prays that he may be enlarged on bail. 10. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No.12039/2022, subject to specific Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 conditions, including the fact that the petitioner shared report to the jurisdictional police station once a week, for six months from the date of release. The petitioner failed to comply with the order of appearing before the IIC, Brajrajnagar, on the specified dates. This court also directed that the Court in seisin of the case shall have the liberty to cancel petitioner’s bail if any of the above conditions were violated or if a case for cancellation of bail was otherwise made out. 11. Learned counsel for the State further submits that after being released on bail, the petitioner has committed serious offences and has been implicated in the following cases: Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No. 115/2023 (dated 14.05.2023) under Sections 364/307/323/325/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No. 316/2023 (dated 25.11.2023) under Sections 341/323/325/387/307/294/506/34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and apart from the aforementioned, has a series of criminal cases pending against him, including: Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No. 262/2019 under Sections 120(B)/302 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Brajrajnagar P.S. Case No. 263/2019 under Sections 353/332/307/34 of the IPC. Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 478/2019 under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 13. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner’s repeated violations of bail conditions and continued involvement in criminal activities post-release constitute a “supervening circumstance” warranting the cancellation of bail. 14. It is a well-settled principle of law that bail may be cancelled if the accused, after being granted bail, misuses the liberty or violates the conditions upon which the bail was granted. Bail may also be revoked in the presence of supervening circumstances or if material facts were concealed during the bail application. Moreover, where the accused is found to be involved in subsequent criminal activities, the court may reconsider or cancel bail. 15. A similar sentiment was expressed by the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana1 where it was observed that: the grounds “4. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain 1 (1995) 1 SCC 349 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” 16. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd Abdul Kadir Chaudhary2, the Supreme Court enumerated certain circumstances that may be considered supervening in nature, justifying the cancellation of bail. The relevant extract is produced herein: “Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation , (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.” 17. Upon reviewing the records, it is clear that the trial court found it inappropriate to grant bail in light of the accused’s conduct and breach of bail conditions. The accused is charged with offences that are heinous and grievous in nature and punishable with imprisonment for life or death. The court considered the grave risk posed by the accused in potentially influencing or intimidating the remaining witnesses, given the serious nature of the charges. Moreover, the accused has been 2 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CRL.) NOS.6855-6857 of 2013 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-Nov-2024 17:57:33 implicated in subsequent offences which is a clear violation of the conditions of bail. 18. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the accused has demonstrated a clear case of violating bail conditions, and the gravity of the offence presents a clear risk of further interference with the prosecution’s case. This Court, therefore, concurs with the trial court’s decision and finds no merit in the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 19. Accordingly, this BLAPL stands dismissed. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Page 7 of 7