Orissa High Court
Nilamani Pradhan vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 8 June, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.555 of 2021
Nilamani Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Ms. Sanjibani Mishra,
Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr. M.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate (Informant)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 08.06.2021
04. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
None appears on behalf of the informant. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.1419 of 2020 arising out of Jankia P.S. Case No.249 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda for commission of offences punishable under sections 143/341/323/294/304/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda which was rejected on 19.01.2021.
// 2 // Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.12.2020 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 143/341/323/294/304/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute started on 09.12.2020 between some villagers of Rambhabili and members of a Barat party while a marriage procession was going on. The dispute between the villagers and the Barat party members aggravated when the Barat party members were returning back after marriage and the deceased Bikash Sahu, who was a member of Barat party was not traced out for which first information report was lodged on 10.12.2020 before the Inspector in-Charge of Jankia police station by one Kedarnath Sahu, who is the father of the deceased and in the first information report, four accused persons were named along with twenty to thirty persons but the name of the petitioner does not find place therein as an accused. He further submitted that on 11.12.2020, the dead body of Bikash Sahu was found floating in a village well and when it was brought out and it was sent for post mortem examination, the doctor conducting post mortem examination noticed some injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased but opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning. He further submitted that the allegation of assault on the deceased and others as appears from the statements of the witnesses is that about twenty persons assaulted to them while the Barat party was returning back after completion of marriage ceremony and there is no specific overt act against the Page 2 of 4 // 3 // petitioner and there is also no material on record whether the deceased was pushed into the well or he himself jumped into it from which dead body was recovered. He further submitted that in view of the available materials on record, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, produced the case diary, opposed the prayer for bail and placed the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of one Sarat Chandra Sahu as well as the statement of one Goutam Routray. She also placed the post mortem examination report and stated that the deceased sustained number of injuries on his person.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the surrounding circumstances under which the occurrence has taken place, absence of any specific overt act against the petitioner and also absence of clear material as to how the deceased died and keeping in view the post mortem report findings and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a 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 conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Page 3 of 4// 4 // As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No. 4587 dated 25th March 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April 2021.
( S.K. Sahoo) RKM Judge Page 4 of 4