Prasanna Sahu v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 0101. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.01.2020 and he has been charge sheeted…
Judgment
Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO Order No. ORDER 30.11.2023
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.01.2020 and he has been charge sheeted under section 302 of the IPC and other offences. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier for bail in BLAPL No.6122 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.07.2022 and while rejecting the bail application, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that four eye witnesses have been examined in the meantime in the learned trial Court and they are P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and // 2 // P.W.8 and as per their evidence, the main role attributed relating to the assault on the deceased Gagan Sahu is against co-accused Narayan Sahu, who is the son of the petitioner and though P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8 have stated about the presence of the petitioner at the spot at the time of occurrence, no specific overt act has been attributed against him and it is only P.W.2, who has stated that the petitioner abated the commission of crime for which his son Narayan Sahu assaulted the deceased Gagan Sahu.
Operative part
He further argued that since the three eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8 have not stated about the abatement part, the solitary version of P.W.2 is very difficult to be accepted and in view of the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody for more than three years and ten months and slow progress of the trial, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered. Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and placed the statements of the eye witnesses. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, nature of evidence adduced so far in the learned trial Court and since, the statement of the eye witness P.W.2 regarding abatement of commission of murder by the petitioner to the co-accused Narayan Sahu has not been deposed to by P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8 and further taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and direct the petitioner to be released on bail. // 3 // Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.
While on bail, the petitioner shall not try to come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence and he shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date on which the case would be fixed for trial and he shall not indulge in any criminal activities in any manner. Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application. Judge (S.K. Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Dec-2023 14:55:51
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Let the petitioner be released on bail in the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.