The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Jayanti Thapa @ Jayantee Thapa (In BLAPL No.7563 of 2024) Rupesh Chhura @ Bhima & Others (In BLAPL No.7307 of 2024) Gopal Mahananda @ Gopal Nag (In BLAPL No.11117 of 2024) … Petitioners Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. T.K. Sahu, Advocate (in BLAPL No.11117 of 2024) Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate (in BLAPL No.7563 of 2024) Mr. S.K. Tripathy, Advocate (in BLAPL No.7307 of 2025) -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. P. Satpathy, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 07.07.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are taken up together for disposal. 3. These are applications U/S.483 BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Sindhekela
Legal Reasoning
PS Case No.290 of 2023 arising out of SC No.18 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kantabaji, for commission of offences punishable U/S. Page 1 of 5 Order No. 02. 452/302/325/34 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Rakhad Thapa and attempting to the life of Khirod Thappa by assaulting him with iron rods, along with co-accused persons. 4.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11117 of 2024 submits that the material witness in this case is PW-4, but he has not stated anything against any of the accused person-cum- petitioners, however, the identification of the petitioners by PW4 in the Court for the first time has no value since FIR was lodged against unknown persons, but PW4 remained silent without taking name any of the petitioners when the FIR was lodged by his mother. It is also submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel that there is of course the only circumstance of recovery of weapon offence against the petitioners, but fact remains that the witness to recovery PW.14 and PW.16 is hardly useful against the petitioners since their evidence does not disclose about recovery of weapon offence pursuant to disclosure statement of the petitioners, who being in custody for some time may kindly be granted bail. 4.1 . On the other hand Mr. Susshanta Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.7563 of 2024 and Mr. Susanta Kumar Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL No.7307 of 2024 submit that there is in fact no material against the petitioners and Page 2 of 5 thereby, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail. Additionally, Mr. Joshi, by highlighting the evidence of PW.4 submits that the petitioner Jayanti Thapa @ Jayantee Thapa being a lady and she having not participated in the crime may kindly be granted bail. 4.2. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the identification of the petitioners by PW.4 in the Court cannot be brushed aside lightly, merely because no TI parade has been conducted inasmuch as the Court identification of the accused-petitioners by PW4 is very much significant and in this case, PW.4 has identified all the petitioners applying for bail and they having being found to have committed murder of the deceased are not entitled. Accordingly, Mr. Satpathy, has prayed to reject the bail application of the petitioners. 5. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegations against the petitioners for committing murder of the deceased, but much emphasis has been given to the deposition of PW.4 to grant bail to the petitioners, since none of the petitioners have been put to TI parade and FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. It is the settled principle of law that detail analysis of evidence and meticulous examination of documents on merit should not be undertaken at the time of consideration the bail in which prima facie case showing the complicity of the person accused of offence has to be Page 3 of 5 considered. It is no doubt, but true that the purpose of TI parade is primarily to confirm the witness ability to identify the suspect, especially when the witness is a stranger to the suspect, however, the same may not have application in a case where the witness has had the occasion to see the suspect many a times and is acquainted with them. In the context, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in State of HP Vrs. Prem Chand;(2002) 10 SCC 518 wherein in a somewhat similar case where the injured child witness had seen the occurrence, the Apex Court has held that a test of identification parade may not be necessary when the witness already knows the accused persons and can identify them in the Court of law. In this case, the petitioner- Jayanti Thapa @ Jayantee Thapa is a lady and she had been in custody for some time, however, the eye witness-cum-PW4 had simply stated about petitioner, who is his aunt watching the incident secretly. Further, the petitioner- Jayanti Thapa @ Jayantee Thapa being a lady can be given the benefit of first proviso appended to Sec. 480 of BNSS, especially when she had got small minor daughter. 6. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submission and on going through the materials placed on record together with the evidence of witnesses as made available to this Court, more particularly the evidence of PW.4, this Court while allowing the bail application of petitioner- Jayanti Thapa Page 4 of 5 @ Jayantee Thapa in BLAPL No.7563 of 2024 does not consider it proper to grant bail to the rest of the petitioners. Hence, the bail application of the petitioners namely Rupesh Chhura @ Bhima & others in BLAPL No.7307 of 2024 and Gopal Mahananda @ Gopal Nag in BLAPL No.11117 of 2024 stand rejected. However, the bail application of the petitioner- Jayanti Thapa @ Jayantee Thapa in BLAPL No.7563 of 2024 stands allowed and she be allowed to go on bail on such terms and conditions as deems fit and proper by the Court in seisin over the matter.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand disposed of. 7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. Jayakrushna (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Jul-2025 15:38:21 Page 5 of 5