The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 11158 of 2022 An application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Jhuna Bhoi --------------- ...… -Versus- Petitioner State of Odisha ...…. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.K.Bhanjadeo, Advocates For Opp. Party : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Decision
O R D E R 18th October, 2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Chandbali P.S. Case No. 63/2022, subsequently Page 1 of 6 registered as CID CB P.S. Case No. 04/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 122/2022 pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak. 3. The prosecution case is that one Panchanan Swain lodged FIR at Chandabali P.S. on 14.02.2022 alleging therein i.e. 05.02.2022 at 12.30 P.M. his son Manas Kumar Swain(deceased) had left home from Bhadrak for video shooting after taking two cameras from one Tapan Kumar Mohanty at Bhubaneswar. He completed the shooting on 07.02.2022. On that day, the owner of Sampurna News Channel being accompanied by Sarat Panda of Nalgunda and Bhagirathi Sethi of Argus News Channel being assisted by Deepak kidnapped the deceased. In course of investigation, it was discovered that the deceased was severely assaulted and had met with death thereby. His dead body was found buried near village Badhipatna, Nuakateni under Raj Sunakhala. It was further revealed that co-accused Sarmistha Rout had engaged the deceased for shooting marriage events and other social functions and due to some dispute between Page 2 of 6 them, he did not deliver the memory chip of the recordings. Further, the deceased started avoiding co- accused Sarmistha Rout from January 2022 and since then, she was searching for an opportunity to kidnap him. Having come to know about the visit of the deceased to Chandabali area for shooting a marriage function, co- accused Sarmistha along with her associates namely Jhuna Bhoi (petitioner), Nilu alias Bibek Nayak, Bhagi alias Bhagyadhar Nayak and Raj alias Ranjan Nayak came to Chandbali in a car owned by Sarmistha with preparation to kidnap the deceased on 07.02.2022. While the deceased was moving in a two-wheeler along with his assistants, accused Sarmistha and her associates intercepted them and took the deceased to Dayal Ashram located at Kuha village. They demanded the memory chip from him and severely assaulted him by means of bamboo planks and wooden sticks. As a result, the deceased died. On the next day, all the accused persons with the intention of wiping out the evidence carried the dead body of the deceased to a cultivable field near village Page 3 of 6 Badhipatna where they dug pit and buried the dead body after sprinkling salt over it to enable its quick decomposition. Thereafter, they came to Chandikhol and tried to dispose of the belongings of the deceased by setting fire on them and concealed the ‘gainti’ and spade in a nearby bushy area. 4. Heard Mr. S.K.Bhanajadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mishra learned Additional Standing counsel for the State. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Bhanjadeo, that the petitioner was never named in the FIR and has been implicated only on the basis of the so-called disclosure statements of the co-accused persons. Moreover, the petitioner is a maid servant working in the Dayal Ashram and had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that 3 co-accused persons namely Parameswar Rout, Niranjan Sethi, Krushna Chandra Nayak have been granted bail on the same set of evidence. Page 4 of 6 6. Per contra, Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned ASC has submitted with reference to the statement of an eyewitness, Sarojini Sitha alias Soni that the petitioner was correctly identified by the said witness in the T.I. Parade. Moreover, the disclosure statement under Section 27 clearly indicates her presence at the spot along with the co-accused persons at the time of occurrence and of assisting them. Thus, her complicity is clearly proved from the statement of Sarojini Sitha. 7. I have heard the rival submissions at length and have also perused the materials on record carefully. 8. Perusal of the statement of the eyewitness Sarojini Sitha clearly reveals that she was a worker in the Dayal Ashram and claims to have seen all the accused persons including the present petitioner in the room in which, the deceased had been confined to and was being assaulted. She also specifically stated that while the deceased was being assaulted by the other co-accused persons, the petitioner and co-accused Sarmistha were standing nearby. She also stated that at the relevant time, the Page 5 of 6 petitioner had asked her to increase the volume of the T.V. She also states to have seen the accused persons including the petitioner taking away the deceased from the Ashram. 9. From an objective reading of the statement of Sarmistha Sitha recorded under Section 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C., it is seen that there is enough evidence therein to, prima facie, show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Though, no specific overt act of assault, per se, has been attributed to her yet evidence of her presence and active assistance rendered to the other accused persons during the assault on the deceased prima facie shows her complicity. 10. As regards the submission that some co-accused persons have been granted bail, this Court finds that none of them was present at the spot nor any evidence is available to show that they had been charge sheeted for the assault of the deceased. Obviously, the petitioner stands on entirely different footing than them and therefore, cannot claim parity. Page 6 of 6 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, and in particular having regard to the strong prima facie materials on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence of kidnapping, murder and of concealing the evidence thereof, I am not inclined to grant bail at this juncture. 12. The bail application is therefore rejected. Deepak ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 15-Nov-2023 18:16:36 Page 7 of 6