The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10549 of 2023 Ananda Chandra Behera and others … Petitioners Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha … Opposite Party Mr. S.S. Kanungo, AGA Mr. R.C. Maharana, Advocate(Informant) Order No. 04. CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 20.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Tigiria P.S. Case No.76 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.138 of 2023 pending in the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Athagarh for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 147/ 148/ 341/ 323/ 325/ 326/ 307/ 302/ 354/ 294/ 506/149 of IPC r/w Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, on the allegation of rioting being armed with deadly weapons and committing murder of the deceased. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Maharana, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. S.S. Page 1 of 5 Kanungo, learned AGA in the present matter and perused the record. Pursuant to the order passed on 14.10.2023, Mr. Kanungo, learned AGA produces the written instruction received from the IO, wherein the IO has reported about involvement of the deceased in 14 numbers of criminal cases. 4. At the outset, Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners urges before the Court that since the allegation appearing against the Petitioners are omnibus in nature, it would be very difficult to segregate the case against the real culprit and the Petitioners having been detained in custody for more than 10 months and the case having already been committed to the Court of Sessions, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the Petitioners in custody, especially when bail is the rule, but jail is the exception and an accused is presumed to be innocent in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned AGA replies to the submission of the learned Sr. counsel for the Petitioners that unless the Petitioners are being detained in custody, no evidence will be forthcoming against the Petitioners, but he, however, acknowledges that only one criminal antecedent is reported against the Petitioner No.1 and rest of 5 Petitioners are first time offenders and charge-sheet has already been filed in this case. 6. Mr. R.C. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the Informant, however, does not dispute about Page 2 of 5 the absence of name of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the FIR as well as 161 statement of the parents of the deceased but he, however, seriously opposes the bail application of the Petitioners by contending inter-alia that the Petitioners being armed with deadly weapons had killed the deceased. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Informant also seeks leave of the Court to produce the photograph of the deceased, but since the murder of the deceased being not disputed in this case, the photograph as sought to be produced before this Court has nothing to do with deciding the bail application. Learned counsel for the Informant, however, does not file the photograph of the deceased. 7. After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offences as alleged against the Petitioners, so also the accusations sought to be brought against the Petitioners being omnibus in nature and regard being had to the conspicuous absence of the name of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the FIR as well as 161 statement of the parents of the deceased and taking into account the pre trial detention of the Petitioners in custody with submission of charge sheet and the case being committed to the Court of Sessions in the meanwhile, this Court considers that no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the Petitioners further, especially when the investigation is already complete and trial is yet to commence, but in order to foster fair trial, it is to be seen as to how the Page 3 of 5 Petitioners would not be able to tamper with the evidence by imposing appropriate conditions. 8. Hence, the bail application of the petitioners namely Ananda Chandra Behera, Chuan @ Srikanta Behera, Lakhani @ Laxman Nayak @ Tipu, Jaga @ Sangram Singh @ Jaga Pradhan, Sibaji Jena @ Suruja and Jayanta Rout @ Jalia stand allowed and they are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only each 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 of posting without fail unless their attendance are 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.229-A of IPC in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by giving their present address of stay (iv) the petitioners shall report attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on 2nd Sunday of each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of their release from the custody Page 4 of 5 (v) the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly establish contact with any of the witnesses cited in the chare-sheet so as to dissuade or influence them from disclosing truth before the Court and (v) the petitioners shall not make any endeavour to visit to the house of the deceased to terrorize or influence the parents of the deceased who are the witnesses in this case. 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.
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per 9. 10. Rules. (G. Satapathy) Judge Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 21-Feb-2024 18:30:18 Page 5 of 5