JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.10857 of 2022 Santosh Kumar Pradhan & others …. Petitioners Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate (Informant) CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.01.2024 09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant. 2. The Petitioners are accused in S.T. Case No.144 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, LR & LTV, Berhampur, arising out of Digapahandi P.S. Case No.145 of 2022 for commission of the offence under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioners relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, LR & Page 1 of 5 LTV, Berhampur, by order dated 18.10.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners are in custody since 3.5.2022 and in the meanwhile trial has progressed substantially inasmuch as 21 out of 46 witnesses have already been examined and keeping in view the nature of evidence qua the role played by the Petitioners, their further continuance in custody is not warranted. 6. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Sahoo relies on the statement of the two eye witnesses Rabi Chandra Gouda and Bishnu Prasad Pujari, P.Ws.10 and 18 respectively. Referring to the statement of P.W. 10 it is submitted that both the eye witnesses were following the deceased in a separate bike and accused Debaraj Reddy and Budu Das assaulted Sudarsan Swuar by means of iron rod and stone and accused Tuna Gouda assaulted Sudhir Patra. 7. It is apt to note that Sudarsan Swuar and Sudhir Patra are the deceased. 8. It is stated by referring to the statement of P.W.10 that another co-accused Prasanta Gouda threatened them. Learned counsel also places reliance on the statement of the other alleged eye witness P.W. 18 (Bishnu Prasad Pujari) and submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken into account admittedly the overt act is not attributed to the present Petitioners. Hence, they may be released on bail. Page 2 of 5 9. On instruction, it is submitted that the Petitioners are the first offenders. 10. Learned counsel for the State and the Informant oppose the prayer for bail and submit that the bail application of the co-accused Prasanta Kumar Gouda was rejected by this Court by order dated 3.4.2023 in BLAPL No.9888 of 2022. And, the Petitioners are similarly placed. 11. To fortify their submission learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant rely on the statements of P.Ws.4,9 and 11 and submit that the motive behind the crime is clearly established and there was a prior meeting for executing such plan and accordingly as per the role ascribed to each of the accused the act was done and ultimately it culminated in “double murder” and the manner in which the Petitioners congregated, which is borne out from the statement of P.W.9, the bail application of the Petitioners does not merit consideration. 12. Hence, it is submitted that as charge has been framed under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC it is not possible to segregate the role ascribed to each of the Petitioners at this stage of trial. Hence, as the case against them is well made out, they ought not to be released on bail. 13. It is further submitted that it is on record that while rejecting the bail application of Krushna Chandra Gouda by order dated 15.03.2023 in BLAPL No.11269 of 2022 threat perception of the witnesses was taken into account. Since the Petitioners have actively participated in the crime, their release will affect the ongoing trial. Page 3 of 5 14. It is apt to note here that a Coordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the bail application of Prasanta Kumar Gouda, who is not a Petitioner in the case at hand, by order dated 03.04.2022 in BLAPL No.9888 of 2022 had observed that the said Prasanta Kumar Gouda had instigated the other accused persons to commit the crime and taking into accont that he is an accused in the N.D.P.S Case, rejected his BLAPL. 15. It is trite law that when trial is continuing this Court cannot make a clinical examination of the materials on record. There is no cavil regarding such proposition of law as being advanced by the learned counsel for the State as well as the Informant. 16. But at the same time each case has to be dealt with in the background of given facts. On a close scrutiny of the case and the statement of the eye witnesses P.Ws.10 and 18 wherein the overt act has not been attributed to the present Petitioners and they are the first offenders, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin. 17. Taking into account the earlier threat perception which of course was allegedly done at the behest of the co-accused Krushna Chandra Gouda, it is directed that the Petitioners shall not in way try to intimidate or threaten the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined and/or are to be examined. In the event there is any threat perception, it shall be open for the prosecution as well as the Informant to seek variance of this order. 18. Learned Court in seisin is called upon to verify as to whether the Petitioners have any criminal antecedents of any nature. If it Page 4 of 5 comes to fore that the Petitioners have any criminal antecedents, this order shall not be given effect to. 19. Additionally it is directed that the Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station twice every week on the date and time so fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin and one of the family members of each of the Petitioners shall execute a P.R. Bond. 20. If it comes to fore that the Petitioners have any criminal antecedents, learned Court in seisin is requested to bring to the notice of this Court so that necessary follow up action shall be taken against the Petitioners for misleading this Court. 21. 22. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule. (V. NARASINGH) PKS Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 19-Jan-2024 18:06:11 Page 5 of 5