The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6524 of 2024 Tukuna @ Ajay Samantra …. Petitioner None State of Odisha CORAM: -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr.Jayanta Kumar Bal, AGA Order No. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 27.11.2024 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Mr.Dhananjaya Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the client has taken away the brief and he has no instructions in the matter. 3. This is the 3rd successive bail application of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.133 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.504 of 2023 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-III, Cog-taking Court, Cuttack, now pending before the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.282 of 2023, registered under Sections 302/34 of IPC. 4. BLAPL No.13167 of 2023 filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on 29.11.2023 granting him liberty to move for bail afresh after commitment of the case. Page 1 of 6 BLAPL No.114 of 2024 filed by the petitioner had been rejected on 31.01.2024 granting him liberty to approach the learned Court below for bail afresh after examination of the material witnesses. Thereafter, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on 02.05.2024 by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 5. Perused the report dated 18.11.2024 of the learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, who has stated that the case record has been received on transfer by this Court on 09.1.2024 but in spite of repeated letters and reminders, neither the chemical examination report nor the material objects have been submitted by the concerned IIC for which charge has not been framed against the accused persons till date and the case is posted to 28.11.2024 awaiting chemical examination report and material objects from the IIC, Govindpur P.S. and for consideration of the charge. 6. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2023 and the prayer for bail of the co-accused – Raju @ Rajkishore Samantra in BLAPL No.10705 of 2023 has been allowed by me on 31.10.2023. 7. The prosecution allegation in brief as per FIR lodged by Chandrama Praharaj, mother of the deceased that on 07.07.2023 at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased left his house after having dinner for sleeping in the poultry farm near the house of his uncle. Next morning, she found him lying dead Page 2 of 6 in the rest house of the farm. The petitioner along with his brother-Ajaya Kumar Samantaray had called him to their house and assaulted him by means of lathi and iron rod as a result of which he expired. Then they dragged the body to the rest house and left him there. They washed the area near their house as it had blood stains .Thereafter they absconded. 8. As there is no counsel to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since 12.07.2023, I have perused the case record, the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in BLAPL No.10705 of 2023 and heard the learned Addl. Government Advocate, Mr.J.K.Bal. 9. On 20.11.2024 although no counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, time had been granted to Mr.Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel to obtain the case diary as well as instructions as to the reasons for the delay in submission of chemical examination report and the material objects. 10. Mr.J.K.Bal, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that neither case diary nor instructions have been received. 11. Perusal of the file of the office of the learned Advocate General reveals on 13.11.2024, a letter had been sent asking for instructions regarding the stage of the trial. But in spite of the order dated 20.11.2024, no letter has been issued by the learned Government Counsel for obtaining the case diary. Page 3 of 6 12. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 and 7 of the order dated 31.10.2023 passed in BLAPL No.10705 of 2023 are reproduced below : “4. Mr. D. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2023 and the statements of neighbours and one Sadhana Samantra would reveal that the deceased and accused persons were neighbor and the petitioner would pass lewd comments and misbehave with Sadhana Samantra. On the night of occurrence in a drunken state he had entered her house and outraged her modesty and learning about this the petitioner and co- accused came to rescue her. The deceased tried assault the co accused with a knife. It has been alleged that the petitioner has assaulted the deceased with a bamboo lathi, but there are no corresponding injuries. 5. Mr. A.P.Dash learned Addl. Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the co-accused had earlier threatened to kill the deceased if he did not mend his ways and the petitioner and his brother (co-accused) have assaulted the deceased mercilessly. As per the post mortem examination report, he has sustained at least six stab / incised injuries on different parts of the body and bled to death. He further submits that the accused persons absconded after the occurrence which confirms their complicity in the crime. 6. I have perused the statements of the witnesses Fanki @ Debendra Praharaj (brother of the deceased), Nityananda Page 4 of 6 Das a neighbour, Sadhana Samantara and the postmortem examination report. 7. The statements reveal that the deceased was in the habit of misbehaving with the wife of the co accused and eldest daughter of the petitioner, for which his mother and brother had been told to caution and control him. On 07.07.2023 night after taking dinner, in the absence of the co accused, he had entered his house and misbehaved with the wife of the co-accused for which she ran out of the house and called the accused persons. The deceased was carrying a sharp cutting weapon with which he tried to assault the co-accused and the co-accused has sustained injuries on his hand. The co accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with the same weapon and the petitioner allegedly assaulted him with a bamboo lathi. Co accused has given recovery of the bhujali which he had thrown behind the house and the bamboo lathi was recovered from the spot”. 13. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the genesis of the occurrence and the status report submitted by the learned trial Court wherein it is stated that till date, charge has not been framed as the chemical examination report and material objects have not been received from the concerned IIC, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail. 14. Let the petitioner-Tukuna @ Ajay Samantra be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions: Page 5 of 6 (i) He will not threaten or try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with prosecution evidence. (ii) He will remain present in Court on each date it is fixed for trial. 15. The BLAPL is accordingly allowed. 16. As the petitioner is not represented by any counsel, certified copy of this order shall not be granted. 17. As no counsel is appearing on behalf of the petitioner, a copy of this order be sent to the learned 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, so that a copy can be served on the petitioner, who is in custody. This order shall be acted upon. 18. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Advocate General for information. Bichi (Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 04-Dec-2024 12:57:13 Page 6 of 6