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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7928 of 2024 Basanta Dalei State of Odisha …. Petitioner (s) Represented By Mr. Gopal Krushna Mohanty, Adv. -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. 04. F.I.R. No. 0045
Decision
ORDER 24.12.2024 Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections Section 302 of the I.P.C. Court’s Name 24.01.2024 Dhamnagar G.R. Case No.72 of 2024 arising out of Dhamnagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Dhamnagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 72 of 2024, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Dhamnagar and registered for the 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., has filed this petition seeking for his release on bail. 4. The facts, as disclosed in the First Information Report, reveal that on January 24, 2024, at 9:56 A.M., the complainant, Sudarsan Parida, approached Dhamnagar Police Station with a written report. He stated that on January 4, 2024, he had admitted his younger brother, Kedar Parida/ to the “Bastav Nisha Nibarana Center” for treatment. However/ on January 23, 2024, at approximately 5:00 P.M., he received a phone call from the center informing him that his brother was unwell. Shortly thereafter/ he was informed of his brother’s demise. Distressed by this news, the complainant, accompanied by other villagers, rushed to the center, where they found Kedar Parida deceased. Based on their observations and suspicions, they alleged that physical torture and severe assault inflicted at the center had caused Kedar Parida’s death/ leading to the initiation of these proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, serving as a caretaker at the “Bastav Nisha Nibarana Kendra/” has been falsely implicated and has no connection with the alleged offense. It was asserted that the center adhered to all requisite legal and technical standards for the de-addiction treatment provided to the complainant’s brother. Counsel further highlighted that the post-mortem report concluded that the deceased had succumbed to a “myocardial infarction/” negating allegations of foul play. The petitioner/ who has been in custody since January 24, 2024, argues that with the charge sheet 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 already filed, there is no justification for his continued detention. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on bail 6. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the petitioner’s plea for bail with vigor, submitted that the mere filing of the charge sheet does not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting such relief. It was argued that the inquest report, FIR, post-mortem findings, seizure lists, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and other relevant materials on record unequivocally point to the petitioner’s unprofessional conduct as the caretaker of the center. Counsel further contended that the injuries observed on the deceased’s body could have precipitated a myocardial infarction or heart attack due to the severe pain inflicted. In light of these considerations, the State urged the Court to reject the petitioner’s bail application. 7. It is a settled principle in bail jurisprudence that courts, at the stage of considering bail, must exercise prudence and restraint. The inquiry at this stage is confined to assessing whether a prima facie case is made out, without embarking on an extensive analysis of the merits that might prejudice the defense of the accused. A bail order need only reflect the relevant considerations that weighed with the Court in granting such relief, rather than providing a detailed adjudication of the case. 8. To this effect, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem,1 observed as following: “28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. 29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra), a three-Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.” 9. Upon a careful examination of the case records, it prima facie emerges that the petitioner is implicated under Section 302 of the I.P.C., based on substantial material unearthed during the investigation. The inquest report, FIR, post-mortem findings, seizure lists, and witness statements 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., along with other connected documents, collectively indicate that the petitioner, as the caretaker of the “Bastav Nisha Nibarana Kendra/” acted in a grossly unprofessional manner. The injuries observed on the deceased’s body are indicative of severe trauma, which could have led to a myocardial infarction or heart attack triggered by intense pain. 10. This Court remains acutely aware of the profound sanctity of personal liberty, a fundamental right inherent to every individual. However, alongside this cherished principle exists an equally weighty duty to carefully consider the gravity of the charges brought against the accused. In the nuanced exercise of granting bail, the Court cannot afford to disregard the seriousness of the allegations or the facts that form the foundation of the case. Bail cannot be granted on a superficial assessment of the charges as trivial, baseless, or vexatious; they must possess substance. When such allegations are supported by credible evidence that leads a reasonable mind to a prima facie belief in their truth—the Court must temper its inclination towards leniency with the caution demanded by justice. The balance between liberty and judicial duty must, therefore, be struck with utmost care and discernment. 11. In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, the Supreme Court while reviewing an appeal concerning the cancellation of bail, outlined several important factors that a court must consider when deciding whether to grant bail. The Court emphasized that while an exhaustive list of criteria 21991 Supp (2) SCC 133 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 cannot be provided, the central principle for granting bail is that the decision must stem from a careful and judicious exercise of the court’s discretion. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "17. While granting bail, the relevant considerations are: (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hardandfast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court." 12. In light of the aforementioned precedent, it must be observed that granting bail under such circumstances would imperil the very integrity of the judicial process. It would open the door to potential intimidation of witnesses and create an opportunity for the accused to evade justice. Bail, while a significant safeguard of personal liberty, cannot be extended where the facts and circumstances reveal a genuine threat to the administration of justice. When the evidence before the Court indicates that the accused may have perpetrated an offence striking at the core of societal order, the privilege of bail must be withheld. The sanctity of justice demands vigilance, ensuring that its course remains unimpeded and its principles untainted by compromise. 13. Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced and a holistic appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the grave 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: 24-Dec-2024 16:41:04 and serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner, this Court finds itself unable, at this stage, to accede to the request for bail. 14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) B. Jhankar Page 7 of 7