Orissa High Court
Shiba Prasad Behera vs State Of Odisha And Another …. … on 22 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.10776 of 2024
Shiba Prasad Behera .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. A Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate for O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
22.01.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case
No.260 of 2024 arising out of Naikanidihi P.S. Case No.27 of 2018
corresponding to G.R. Case No.63 of 2018 registered for alleged
commission of the offences under Sections 302/363/364/34 of
I.P.C. pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhadrak. The petitioner had approached before the learned
Court below praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide
its order dated 08.10.2024 has rejected the bail application of the
petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present
petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.
Page 1 of 4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction from the
petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other
bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court
relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.
4. The prosecution case is that on the written report of the
complainant on 14.02.2018 that at evening, his son went to village
Jaikrushnapur to watch melody, but he did not return home. They
searched him everywhere, but in vain. So, they reported the matter
in the local Police Station. Hence, the F.I.R.
5. Initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the unknown person at
the instance of the opposite party No.2. The local police
investigated the case. Being dissatisfied with the same, the
informant demanded for C.B. (CID) investigation. The investigation
was taken over by the C.B. (CID). After the investigation, the Final
Form was filed on 15.04.2019, inter alia, stating therein that no
case is made out against the petitioner.
6. Being dissatisfied with the Final Form, the complainant,
opposite party No.2 filed a protest petition bearing I.C.C. Case
No.122 of 2019 before the learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur. Enquiry
under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. was carried out by recording the
pre-summoning evidence. Thereafter, the cognizance has been
Page 2 of 4
taken in the present case for the offences punishable under Sections
7. There is no other evidence brought on record by the
complainant except that allegedly the petitioner was lastly seen with
the deceased. The opposite party No.2 in the protest petition has
orally stated that he had seen the petitioner in the company of his
son preceding crime. Investigation by the CB(CID) has found the
suspicion of the complaint /O.P.No2 to be false.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the
co-accused namely Rajendra Ghadei had approached this Court by
filing BLAPL No.5433 of 2024. This Court vide order dated
04.09.2024 enlarged him on bail. The petitioner is similarly
situated. Hence, he is entitled to bail.
9. Regard being had to the period of custody from 27.09.2024
and the nature of accusation against the petitioner, I am inclined to
admit the petitioner on bail.
Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail by
the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such
terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to
the following additional conditions:-
Page 3 of 4
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each
date on which the case is posted for trial.
(ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till
disposal of the trial.
(iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration
for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. In the event,
any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioners, the
prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before
the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such
application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application
on its own merit.
10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Jan-2025 11:27:45
Page 4 of 4
[ad_1]
Source link