Orissa High Court
Ranbir Singh @ Baban vs State Of Odisha ... Opp. Party on 16 December, 2020
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
BLAPL No.4750 of 2020
1. Ranbir Singh @ Baban
2. Satish Singh
3. Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Opp. party
06. 16.12.2020 The matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
This is an application under section 439 of
Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.425 of 2020
arising out of Koraput Town P.S. Case No.142 of 2020
pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Koraput for
offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners moved an application for bail
before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Koraput which was rejected on 01.06.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are in judicial custody since
29.04.2020 and they have been charge sheeted under
sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
occurrence in question took place according to the
prosecution case during intervening night of 26.04.2020
and 27.04.2020 and one Mithun Digal lodged a report
before the Inspector in-Charge of Koraput Town police
station on 27.04.2020, on the basis of which, Koraput
Town P.S. U.D. Case No.39 of 2020 was registered and
one Anusaya Nayak, S.I. of Police was asked to enquire
into the U.D. case. He further submitted that in the
report which was presented by Mithun Digal, there is no
allegation of assault on the deceased Bijayananda Prasad
by any of the petitioners rather it is stated that the
deceased was hospitalized on 23.04.2020 and he came
to the mess on 26.04.2020 and he was staying there and
he felt uncomfortable during the night and again he went
to sleep and on the next day morning, Mithun Digal
found him dead in that sleeping position. During course
of enquiry, Anusuya Nayak, S.I. of Police on her own
information lodged the first information report against
the three petitioners. It is further submitted that Mithun
Digal who had not stated anything about any assault in
the first report, projected himself as an eye witness to
the occurrence in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and stated
that he found the petitioners assaulting the deceased by
various weapons during that night. It is further
submitted that such a belated statement has been
concocted to falsely entangle the petitioners in the
alleged crime and the deceased was a drunkard and he
sustained injuries due to fall for which he was
hospitalized and in view of the available materials on
record, the bail application of the petitioners may be
favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, produced the case diary and placed the post
mortem examination report of the deceased Bijayananda
Prasad which indicates that he had sustained sixteen
injuries and some of the injuries were on the vital parts
of the body and cause of death was on account of shock
and hemorrhage as a result of those injuries. He also
placed the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Mithun Digal in
which he has stated that on being pressurized by the
petitioners, he submitted the first report before the
Inspector in-Charge of Koraput Town police station and
in that report, he has not alleged anything against the
petitioners. Learned counsel for the State submitted that
the petitioners belonged to the State of Bihar and
Jharkhand and once they are released on bail, it would
be difficult to ensure their attendance at the time of trial.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
accusation against the petitioners, the background of the
case, the surrounding circumstances under which the
occurrence in question took place and the fact that
during trial, it is to be ascertained on the basis of
clinching evidence as to whether the star witness Mithun
Digal presented a false report at the first instance on
being induced or threatened by the petitioners and
whether whatever he stated during recording of his
statements under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
are correct and but taking into the initial version of the
star witness and the period of detention of the
petitioners in judicial custody, I am inclined to release
the petitioners on bail.
Let the petitioners be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/-
(rupees two lakhs) each with two local solvent sureties
each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Court in seisin over the matter along with cash security
of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with further
conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order is granted on
proper application.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
RKM