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.12087 of 2024 Gopal Chandra Behera …. Petitioner (s) Represented By Mr. Susanta Kumar Baral, Adv. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. 02. F.I.R. No. 0555 ORDER 24.12.2024 Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections 20.10.2020 UPD, Cuttack Sadar Sections 302/449/ 120-B/ 109/ 457/ 380/ 34 of I.P.C. Courts’ Name S.T. Case No.198 of 2021 arising out of UPD Sadar Cuttack P.S. Case No.555 of 2020 pending in the court of the learned 1st Additional District Sessions Cuttack. and Judge, 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 UPD Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.555 of 2020, corresponding to S.T. Case No.198 of 2021, Page 1 of 6 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 pending in the court of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack and registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 302/449/120-B/109/457/380/ 34of I.P.C., has filed this petition seeking for his release on bail. 4. The essence of the case lies in the allegation made by the informant, the elder sister of the deceased, who lodged an F.I.R. on October 20, 2020. According to the complaint, at approximately 12:02 PM on the said date, the informant received a phone call informing her of a theft at her sister’s residence. Despite her frail health, she rushed to the location, where she found the door to her sister’s room ajar and her sister’s lifeless body lying on the bed. Harboring suspicion that the petitioner was responsible for her sister’s death/ the informant prompted the initiation of legal proceedings. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, and the matter was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. It is against this backdrop that the present case arises. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. It was further submitted that, out of the 13 prosecution witnesses examined thus far, none have provided any evidence or testimony implicating the petitioner. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner has been in custody for over four years and is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Court, thereby eliminating any reasonable apprehension of absconding or evading the process of justice Page 2 of 6 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 should he be granted bail. On these grounds, it was earnestly prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the State/ opposing the petitioner’s prayer for bail with vehement insistence, submitted that key witnesses in the case are yet to be examined. It was further contended that the materials on record clearly indicate the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged murder of the deceased. Highlighting the grave and heinous nature of the offences, the counsel argued that granting bail at this stage would be detrimental to the interests of justice. Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner’s plea for bail be rejected. 7. It is a well-settled principle in bail jurisprudence that courts must exercise due caution when considering the grant of bail. At this stage, it is sufficient for the Court to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out, without delving into a detailed examination of the merits, as such reasoning may inadvertently prejudice the accused. The bail order need only reflect the relevant factors weighed by the Court in determining whether such relief is appropriate in the circumstances. 8. In Ajwar v. Waseem,1 the Supreme Court has observed as following: “28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate Court for setting aside the bail order on an application being 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 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 Page 3 of 6 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 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. A careful examination of the record reveals that the petitioner, along with four co-accused, is presently facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 449, 120-B, 109, 457, 380, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that, of the 24 charge-sheeted witnesses, 13 have been examined thus far, while certain key witnesses on behalf of the prosecution remain to be heard. Additionally, the materials on record prima facie indicate the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences. The nature of the Page 4 of 6 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 offences is undeniably grave and heinous, attracting severe penalties, including life imprisonment or capital punishment. 10. This Court remains deeply conscious of the inviolable sanctity of personal liberty, a fundamental right inherent to every individual. However, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to carefully consider the gravity of the allegations made against the accused. In the sensitive exercise of determining bail, the seriousness of the charges and the foundational facts of the case cannot be disregarded. The Court cannot grant bail simply because the accusations appear trivial, baseless, or vexatious; they must be supported by substantive grounds. When such allegations are reinforced by credible evidence, sufficient to lead a prudent mind to a prima facie belief in their veracity, the Court must exercise its discretion with caution and prudence, ensuring that justice is neither compromised nor undermined. 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 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 21991 Supp (2) SCC 133 Page 5 of 6 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 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. Guided by the aforementioned precedent, it is evident that granting bail in the present circumstances would pose a substantial risk to the integrity of the judicial process. Such an action could expose witnesses to potential intimidation and afford the accused an opportunity to evade the course of justice. Bail, as a discretionary privilege, must be withheld where the facts and circumstances reveal a genuine threat to the fair administration of justice. Moreover, when the evidence prima facie indicates that the accused may have committed an offence that shakes the very foundation of societal order, the Court must exercise restraint to ensure that justice remains untainted and the rule of law prevails. 13. Considering the submissions made and taking into account a comprehensive view of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, including the grave nature of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. 14. The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) B. Jhankar Page 6 of 6