Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 826 (ORI)

Krishna Samal v. State of Orissa

2017-08-03

S.PUJAHARI

body2017
ORDER 03.08.2017. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner in this case having been implicated in Joda P.S. Case No.26 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.111 of 2013, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 450, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, has filed this petition for her release on pre-arrest bail. 3. It appears from the prosecution allegation that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons forming an unlawful assembly said to have brought out to the deceased from his home, assaulted him brutally and caused his death. It has been specifically stated that co-accused – Giridhari Mohanty and Gobind Chandra Mohanty @ Bunu had caught hold of both the hands of the deceased and another co-accused – Kishore Mohanty @ Tutu had dealt a blow by an axe to the head of the deceased, for which the deceased died at the spot. No specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner in causing the death of the deceased. She is also not named in the F.I.R. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the implication of the petitioner in this case is the outcome of concoction inasmuch as she is not named in the F.I.R. though she is known to the informant and her brother – Kishore Mohanty @ Tutu has been named in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him and she was the sole lady accused in this case. The petitioner has been indicated in this case as because her brother stated to have allegedly played a vital role in causing the death of the deceased, even though she is married, with an ulterior motive to harass her for the alleged misdeed of her brother. In the meanwhile, co-accused persons, namely, Srimanta Pattnaik, Mahendra Mahakud, Titu @ Sunil Patra, Jaga @ Prakash Mohanty, Dhanurjay Mohanty @ Babula, Kalicharan Majhi @ Kande, Giridhari Mohanty, Chotu @ Kishore Kumar Mohanty, Dhanurjay Mohanty @ Babula and Kushal Keinth have since been released on by this Court vide orders passed in BLAPL Nos. 26373 of 2013, 10732 of 2013, 8424 of 2013, 25962 of 2013, 2092 of 2014, 3291 of 2016, 5948 of 2015, 25962 of 2013 and 26860 of 2013 respectively. 26373 of 2013, 10732 of 2013, 8424 of 2013, 25962 of 2013, 2092 of 2014, 3291 of 2016, 5948 of 2015, 25962 of 2013 and 26860 of 2013 respectively. The petitioner being a married lady having her moors in the Society, has no chance of abscondence and least chance of her tampering with the evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail. In such premises, the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and conditions. 5. Learned Counsel for the State, however, vehemently opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner advancing the submission that the co-accused persons, who were released on bail in petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. but the petitioner seeking for her release on pre-arrest bail being indicted in a heinous and serious offence and, as such, she should not be released on pre-arrest bail. But, he does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has no chance of abscondence and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail. 6. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of supportive materials appearing against the petitioners in support of the charge, circumstances in which “the petitioner said to have indicted in this case though her name does not figure in the F.I.R. as an accused, so also the role ascribed to her and also the fact that most of the co-accused persons, who were indicted in this case, have since been released on bail though under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner being a married lady having her moors in the society has no chance of absondance and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that she is indicted in a heinous and serious offence prescribing capital punishment, the petitioner deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail.” 7. Hence, this Court directs that if the petitioner surrenders before the Court in seisin over the matter within four weeks’ hence and makes a motion for bail, the Court concerned shall release her on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper, as it is stated that charge-sheet in this case has since been filed. 8. 8. However, while parting with this case, I am constrained to observe that though this bail application was filed in the year 2013 and vide order dated 21.01.2014 this Court had interimly protected the petitioner till the next date and directing posting of the case in the first week of March, 2014, immediately thereafter this bail application was listed on 10.03.2014, on which date a prayer was made to list this matter one week after and, accordingly, this bail application was adjourned with the extension of interim order till the next date. This matter appears to have not figured in the list for about three years and listed only on 05.07.2017. The aforesaid speaks of an unfortunate state of affairs in an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein interim protection has been granted in an offence under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to make an enquiry into the matter to find out the reasons for non-listing of this matter in spite of the direction of this Court on 10.03.2014 and on such enquiry, if he finds that the same was not listed deliberately, to proceed against the persons for such dereliction appropriately. 9. Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. ABLAPL disposed of.