Orissa High Court
Gopal Chandra Behera vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party(S) on 24 December, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
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.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Represented By
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 24.12.2024
02.
F.I.R. Dated Police Station
Case No. and Sections
No. Courts' Name
0555 20.10.2020 UPD, Cuttack S.T. Case No.198 Sections
Sadar of 2021 arising 302/449/
out of UPD 120-B/ 109/
Cuttack Sadar 457/ 380/ 34
P.S. Case No.555 of
of 2020 pending I.P.C.
in the court of the
learned 1st
Additional
District and
Sessions Judge,
Cuttack.
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 extended1
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 16:41:04to 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 the2
1991 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 16:41:04accused; 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.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Judge
B. Jhankar
Page 6 of 6