Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 16 January, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9385 of 2024
Manoj Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Nayak, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.9386 of 2024
Bana @ Banamali Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Nayak, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10002 of 2024
Konaka Nahak .... Petitioner
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for Informant
Page 1 of 16
BLAPL No.10049 of 2024
Jitendra Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10343 of 2024
Sameer @ Samir Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10577 of 2024
Gopi Gouda .... Petitioner
Mr. Sushil Kumar Patnaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
Page 2 of 16
BLAPL No.10745 of 2024
Manu Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10844 of 2024
Deepak Ku. Nahak @ Deepak .... Petitioner
Nahak
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10845 of 2024
Srikant Pradhan @ Srikanta Pradhan .... Petitioner
@ Basudev
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Bijay Kumar Ragada, Advocate for Informant
Page 3 of 16
BLAPL No.10886 of 2024
Kumar Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.10952 of 2024
Kandha Tarei .... Petitioner
Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Advocate for Informant
BLAPL No.11254 of 2024
Sritam Pahan @ Sritama Pahan @ .... Petitioners
Sonu and another
Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
Page 4 of 16
And
BLAPL No.11433 of 2024
Sudarsan Pahan .... Petitioner
Mr. Achutananda Pattanaik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Advocate for Informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF ORDER:16.01.2025
1.
All the petitions, since arise out of Khallikote P.S. Case No.494
dated 16th May, 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.999 of
2024 and further corresponding to S.T. Case No.60 of 2024, are
disposed of by the following common order.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocates and other set of counsels for
the petitioners, learned counsels for the informant and Mr.
Pradhan, learned ASC for the State.
3. Instant petitions are filed seeking release of the petitioners on
bail in connection with S.T. Case No.60 of 2024 arising out of
G.R. Case No.999 of 2024 pending in the file of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Khallikote on the grounds stated.
4. The petitioners and other accused persons are alleged to be
involved in an occurrence dated 15th May, 2024 and having been
arrested are in judicial custody from the respective dates. In fact,
except three of the petitioners, others were arrested on 16th May,
2024. The petitioner in BLAPL No.11254 of 2024 is in custody
Page 5 of 16
from 27th May, 2024, whereas, two others, namely, Kokana
Nahaka (BLAPL No.10002 of 2024) and Gopi Gouda (BLAPL
No.10577 of 2024) are in custody from 3rd June, 2024 and 4th
June, 2024 respectively. From the chargesheet, it is made to
reveal that 21 out of 23 accused persons have been arrested and
two of them, namely, Manoj Kumar Sahu @ Bablu and Shankar
Prasad Pradhan @ Balia are absconding as on 31st July, 2024, the
date on which, the chargesheet is filed.
5. A report dated 16th May, 2024 was lodged by the informant,
namely, father of the deceased with regard to the occurrence
dated 15th May, 2024 by stating therein that the brother-in-law of
the deceased son and two to three others had been to affix
posters of a political party, which was protested by one of the
accused persons, namely, Sudarshan Pahan @ Mandha, who
threatened them and the same was intimated to the deceased
immediately and thereafter, on the same day at about 8.00 PM,
the deceased went to meet the accused above named and asked
him as to why affixing posters in the locality was opposed and at
that time, the said accused called others and in response 22 to 30
persons gathered there being armed with sword, kati, lathi, etc.
and assaulted the deceased and on hearing hullah, he and others
rushed to the spot but all were assaulted, as a result of which,
they received bleeding injuries and became senseless at the spot,
later to which, the village people reached and shifted them to
Khallikote CHC and then, MKCG, Medical College and Hospital,
Berhampur for better treatment. It is reported that one of the
injured, namely, Jitendra Pahan was shifted to Bhubaneswar for
further treatment and two others, namely, Abhimanyu Pahan and
Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu received the treatment at Berhampur but
the deceased, namely, Dillip Kumar Pradhan was declared dead.
Upon receiving the report, Khallikote P.S. Case No.414 was
registered under Section(s) 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307,
Page 6 of 16
302 and 149 IPC read with Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms
Act and investigation was taken up and at last, it resulted in
submission of the chargesheet dated 31st July, 2024. In total, 23
accused persons have been chargesheeted and as earlier stated,
two of them were still at large. The petitioners have been alleged
of assaulting the injured and the deceased with other accused
persons during the incident dated 15th May, 2024 which took
place during the evening hours.
6. Learned Senior Advocates and other counsels for the
petitioners submits that the alleged occurrence has taken place at
a time when injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu and his
associates had gone to affix posters during the day time leading to
the protest by one of the accused persons, namely, Sudarshan
Pahan and thereafter, in the evening, all the accused persons said
to have assaulted the deceased and others and as such, there was
no pre-plan and pre-meditation to cause murder of the victim,
namely, Dillip Pahan and hence, no case under Section 302 IPC is
made out. It is submitted that the informant alleged that all the
accused persons have participated in the assault but in so far as
the blows received by the deceased are concerned, it is alleged to
be at the behest of the accused persons, namely, Papu Tarei and
Raja Tarei, if at all, the FIR is to be believed. Likewise, the other
accused persons, namely, Bablu Sahu and Raja Tarai are
responsible in assaulting the injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @
Chintu and Jitendra Pahan. The contention is that all the injured
received no grievous injuries as made to reveal from the medical
examination reports on record. It is the submission that even the
deceased, namely, Dillip Pahan received an injury though held to
be grievous but was on his right forearm. Considering the extent
of injures received and the manner in which, it was inflicted
upon, the further submission is that the petitioners in the first
place have had no intention to cause death of the deceased but
Page 7 of 16
committed the overt acts during and in course of the events and
for the same, an offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to
have been made out. It is contended that the intention was not to
commit murder though it may be said that the petitioners had the
knowledge about the likely injuries to be caused to the deceased
on account of the excess committed by them. Regard being had
to the fact that the deceased had been to the spot on his own to
confront the accused, namely, Sudarshan Pahan about the
incident, which had a taken place during the day time and on the
latter’s call, other accused persons including the petitioners
arrived, it is the contention that there was no pre-plan and all on
a sudden, the alleged assault happened, which ultimately resulted
in the former’s death. It is further contended that for affixing of
posters of a political party, the entire incident happened and the
petitioners allegedly committed the over acts and in so far as,
conspiracy being alleged, the same is a falsehood as the assault
was never planned. Considering the fact that the petitioners are
locals and supporters of a political party and on account of a
dispute over affixing posters in the locality, the alleged occurrence
has taken place, it is finally submitted that the investigation since
concluded in the month of July, 2024, as all are in custody since
the dates of arrest, they should be granted bail subject to any
terms and conditions as would be fixed by the Court.
7. On the contrary, such release of the petitioners is strongly
objected to by learned counsels for the informant. It is submitted
that the petitioners and other accused persons had a plan in mind
to eliminate the deceased and his family members for the reason
that they had become the supporters of another political party. It
is contended that two of the witnesses, namely, Himanshu Pahan
and Surendra Pahan have disclosed regarding the intention and
plan of the accused persons as all of them had congregated at a
place before the alleged incident. That apart, in view of a political
Page 8 of 16
rivalry between the deceased and one of the accused persons,
namely, Raju Tarei which started during the panchayat election of
2022 for Kaspur Panchayat Samiti and the former had shifted his
allegiance to another political party, a plan and conspiracy was
hatched to eliminate him and that in mind, the assault was carried
out on him and during that time, others also received injuries.
Since the deceased has filed an election dispute against his
opponent and due to existence of a strained relationship between
both, the alleged incident has happened. It is claimed that the
accused, namely, Raju Tarei had won the panchayat election held
in 2022 and the deceased lost to him for the post of Samiti
Sabhya and in that connection, the election was challenged as the
latter doubted a foul play having taken place during the counting
of votes and again, when he joined another political party, as
according to learned counsels for the informant, the accused
persons being the supporters of said Raju Tarei hatched the plan
and ultimately, perpetrated the crime on 15th May, 2024 and
therefore, considering the same, the petitioners should not be
allowed to go on bail. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners
and other accused persons are administering threat to the family
of the deceased, for which, Khallikote P.S. Case No.842 dated 19th
October, 2024 has been registered under Sections 189(2), 190,
191(2), 191(3), 351(3) and 61(2) of the BNSS besides Sections 4
and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and therefore, in case they
are released on bail, further mischief may be committed by them
in view of the fact that there is a threat perception vis-à-vis the
family of the informant is still looming large.
8. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State supports the contention of
learned counsels for the informant and submits that the
petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased and
injuries caused to others having participated during the incident
along with other accused persons. It is submitted that the names
Page 9 of 16
of the petitioners have been revealed during the investigation by
the informant and others witnesses. Since the names of the
accused persons find a mention including specific roles played by
few of them in the FIR and as a result of the assault, the deceased
after being shirted the Hospital died, the submission is that they
should not be enlarged on bail as it is pleaded for. The incident
had taken place with the participation of the petitioners fully
knowing the consequences and likely injuries to be caused to the
deceased and others and hence, considering the materials on
record, since a prima facie case under Sections 302 and 149 IPC is
proved, at last the contention is that the request for their release
on bail even upon closure of investigation should be denied.
9. The Court perused the chargesheet, medical examination
reports of the deceased and injured and all the petitioners. In
course of investigation, the informant and others have been
examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The details of the events,
which had taken place during the incident, have been narrated by
the witnesses present at the spot. Considering the statements of
the material witnesses, the Court finds that there was a strained
relationship between the deceased and his opponent ever since
2022. The deceased, as earlier stated, joined another political
party during the time of the last general election in 2024, which
widened the differences between the two. The investigation has
also revealed that Raju Tarei and his supporters had approached
the deceased earlier and persuaded him to re-join them but the
same did not materialize and such strained relationship between
them was apparently the reason for the incident which happened
in the morning hours of 15th May, 2024, at the time when one of
the injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu and his associates
had gone to affix the posters and was opposed by the accused,
namely, Sudarshan Pahan and the deceased after being informed
about the said incident had been to meet the said accused, who
Page 10 of 16
called others and shortly thereafter, the incident happened, when
the petitioners and others arrived there being armed. The specific
allegation is against three of the accused persons, who said to
have assaulted the deceased and named in the FIR by the
informant. According to the informant and others, all the accused
persons assaulted including Papu Tarei and Raju Tarei, who gave
the blows by means of sword. It is further made to reveal from
the material on record that the informant, deceased and other
injured, who received injures have been assaulted by means of fist
blows and kicks as well. The claim of the informant is that the
accused, namely, Papu Tarei inflicted one blow which was
avoided by the deceased and on being assisted by the accused,
namely, Raju Tarei, he gave a second blow to the victim, which
landed on his hand. It is submitted that the allegation regarding
assault to the deceased is against the above named accused
persons only and not the petitioners. It is further submitted that
there is a general allegation against all the accused persons with a
mention in the FIR and also revealed from the material evidence
collected regarding the specific overt acts committed by above
named the accused persons including one Bablu Sahu, who said to
have assaulted, the injured, namely, Jitendra Pahan and
considering the same, the petitioners should be held not to have
had any intention or plan to commit such murder. It is alleged
that though the intention was not to cause death of the deceased
but the petitioners and other accused persons had a common
object to eliminate the deceased, hence, committed the crime.
The circumstances under which the alleged incident had taken
place centres around the strained relationship between the
deceased and his political opponent and for the fact that there
was a dispute over affixing posters in the locality. The protest was
from the side of the other side, when posters of the political party
to which the deceased had recently joined and the same was the
Page 11 of 16
reason behind the alleged incident. In the aforesaid backdrop, the
alleged occurrence took place and as a consequence, an innocent
life was lost and it was on account of the mischief and excess
committed by the petitioners and other accused persons, which is
prima facie established with the submission of the chargesheet.
Whether, it was with a common object that the crime was
perpetuated by the accused persons is a matter to be thrashed out
during trial. Whether, it was a plan and excess without pre-
mediation and an incident suddenly happened or that, some of
the accused persons only to be responsible for causing death of
the deceased, as it is claimed learned counsels for the petitioners,
is again matter to be gone into at the time of trial but the fact
remains, the petitioners have been chargesheeted for the offences
allegedly being responsible for the death on the deceased and
causing injuries to others.
10. As far as the seizures are concerned, from the chargesheet, it is
made to understand that the weapons of offence have been
recovered at the instance of some of the accused persons, whose
statements were recorded under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. All such material evidence has been collected during
the investigation as further made to reveal from the chargesheet
and connected documents. In so far as the injuries are concerned,
all are simple in nature except that of the deceased. The injured,
namely, Abhimanyu Pahan received abrasions on the left knee
and inner side lip and as per the medical examination report, it
might have been caused by hard and blunt weapons. The other
injured, namely, Jitendra Pahan though received a cut injury on
the right forearm but it was held to be simple in nature. The
injured, namely, Bapuji Pahan @ Chintu had one cut injury on
the upper arm of the left hand and abrasion on the back side of
the head besides an abrasion on the face but all have been found
to be simple injuries. As earlier discussed, the deceased had one
Page 12 of 16
grievous cut injury on the right forearm revealed at the time of his
medical examination. The accused persons except Kalia @ Kalu
Charan Pradhan and Kartika Parida did not receive any injuries as
made to appear from their medical reports on record. The said
two accused persons had stitched wounds of more than two
weeks old found at the time their medical examination. As to the
post-mortem report of the deceased, on perusal of the same, it
reveals that he had four numbers of injury, such as, a stitched
wound over the right upper forearm, abrasions over left upper
chest, a bruise over left lateral aspects of lower thorax and a super
facial cut wound 1 cm below the injury on the forearm. The
opinion on the cause of death is that all the injuries to be ante-
mortem in nature and the first and third injuries are homicidal
could have been caused by a moderately heavy sharp cutting
weapon(s) and are sufficient to cause death of the deceased in
ordinary course of nature, whereas, other two injuries to be
simple in nature and not sufficient to cause death and the death
was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of such injuries
received and complications arising therefrom. Considering the
post-mortem report, it is made to understand that though the first
injury was on the upper forearm but coupled up with the third
injury on the lower part of thorax found to be homicidal in
nature. In fact, the third injury is a parallel bruise present over left
lateral aspect of lower thorax and present along the mid-axillary
line. It appears that on account of the kicks and fist blows, all
received injuries but the one suffered by the deceased with the
bruise on the thorax part, it proved to be fatal. In other words, as
per the post-mortem report, external injury No.1 and
corresponding internal injury No.3 are held to be homicidal and
was sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course.
The death of the deceased, as stated before, was due to shock and
hemorrhage for having received the injuries during the alleged
Page 13 of 16
incident. The Court finds that though the deceased received a cut
injury, the same is over the forearm. All the injuries received by
the deceased and others may be said to have been caused not on
any vital parts of the body. However, on account of the cut
wound and internal injury No.3, the deceased said to have a
homicidal death though the cause of such death is due to
hemorrhage and shock. As is understood, the submission of
learned counsels for the petitioners is that an offence of lesser
degree has been committed by the petitioners and not the one
under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC.
11. The petitioners as members of an unlawful assembly
committed the excess. Admittedly, injuries have been received by
the deceased and others including the informant. Except, the cut
injury on the deceased, other injuries are simple in nature. As per
the post-mortem report, on account of the injuries received and
other complications, the deceased had a death. Considering the
circumstances under which the alleged incident had taken place,
the petitioners are found to be responsible for the assault on the
deceased and five others. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that
existence of a common object of such unlawful assembly was
whether to cause death of the deceased or otherwise is to be
examined at the time of trial. It may be said that the petitioners
did have the knowledge that any such excess was likely to cause
death of someone during the incident. Whether the common
object was to commit the crime with or without or having the
knowledge that it was likely to cause death and hence, each one
of them to be guilty and thus, liable for the offences, shall have to
be looked into and examined in course of trial.
12. As a reminder, the Court recaps the ingredients necessary for
an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 149 IPC which
depends on whether the accused is part of an unlawful assembly
Page 14 of 16
and whether, he had shared common object. What a prosecution
must prove is that the accused was aware of the offences that
were likely to be committed; and he shared the common object
with other members of the unlawful assembly. Of course, the
same is to be determined during trial, hence, now not to be pre-
judged but shall have to be taken cognizance of for a limited
purpose while considering bail of the petitioners. As earlier
discussed, all injuries found on the person of the injured to be
simple in nature. The deceased received some injuries visibly only
one with a cut wound on hand held to be grievous
correspondingly with an internal injury. As already described, the
external injury received by the deceased was apparently on
account of assault by the named accused persons. The conduct of
the petitioners during the incident plays a part to determine,
whether, they had shared the common object. Though two or
three of the accused persons allegedly used weapons like sword
and others are not and assault was even by means of fist blows
and kicks, the same stands corroborated by the medical
examination reports on record with all most all injuries except
one on the deceased and that too, received on non-vital parts of
the body found to be simple in nature. Alive to the above facts,
circumstances under which the assault has happened and settled
legal position reiterated time and again, a question may be posed,
whether, the petitioners are equally responsible for the alleged
death of the deceased, when the assault was predominantly by
means of fist blows and kicks and considering the majority of the
injuries to be simple in nature. But, again, as an abundant caution,
the Court, at this stage, refrains itself from concluding one way or
the other but it cannot be oblivious of any such conclusion, which
may ultimately be arrived at, with the evidence being received
during trial. With the above discussions, the Court is of the
humble view that the petitioners, who, though, found to have
Page 15 of 16
committed the overt acts in course of events and during the
incident, which has taken place in the manner described and since
are seemingly found not responsible for having used weapons like
swords, which is alleged against the named accused persons and
that, the injuries found to be not grievous vis-à-vis the victims
except the deceased and having been received on not vital parts
of the body, should be allowed to go bail with stringent
conditions and accordingly, it is ordered.
13. In the result, the petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stand
allowed. As a necessary corollary, the petitioners are directed to
be released on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.60 of 2024
arising out of G.R. Case No.999 of 2024 corresponding to
Khallikote P.S. Case No.494 dated 16th May, 2024 subject to
them furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/-(rupees forty thousand)
each with one solvent surety for the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khallikote,
who shall impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case besides the
following, such as, they shall not threaten and cause any harm to
the family members of the deceased and tamper with evidence in
any manner, whatsoever, on bail. It is made clear that in case of
violation of any of the conditions imposed, it shall forthwith
entail cancellation of bail of the petitioners.
14. Urgent copy of the order be issued as per rules.
15.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Jan-2025 17:39:47
Page 16 of 16
[ad_1]
Source link