Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 296 (ORI)

Bina @ Binod Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2018-03-23

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner Bina @ Binod Pradhan has filed this application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Pipili P.S. Case No.89 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.134 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Pipili in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 147/148/341/323/324/325/326/307/379/294/506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case per the first information report lodged by one Rabi Sahu of village Siula before the Inspector in Charge of Pipili police station on 14.3.2017 is that on 13.03.2017 at about 11 a.m. while he and his younger brother Guru Prasad and the friend of his younger brother namely, Ashok were returning home from the weekly market of Pipili, near Pipili Toll Gate, some anti-socials including the petitioner wrongfully restrained them and demanded money for taking liquor on the point of revolver on the head of Ashok and Guru Prasad. When the informant and his companions expressed their inability to meet such demand, all on a sudden co-accused Judhistira Swain instigated the other accused persons to kill them. Immediately the petitioner and co-accused Sanu assaulted Ashok by means of sword on the back side of his head. Guru Prasad was assaulted by means of sword by co-accused Jogia and Mantu. Susanta Pradhan who was following the informant was also assaulted by co-accused Baikunta Pradhan and Ramia Pradhan by lathi. After assaulting the persons, the accused persons threw them by the side of the road and looted gold chain, ring and cash from them. They also threatened the injured persons to kill. After some time, some persons arrived there and they carried Ashok, Guruprasad and Susanta who were in injured condition to Pipili Hospital but as their condition became alarming, they were shifted to Capital Hospital and then to Sree Hospital for treatment where they were fighting for life. 3. After registration of Pipili P.S. Case No.89 of 2017 on 14.03.2017, as per the direction of the Inspector in Charge of Pipili police station, Mr. Binay Kumar Das, A.S.I. of police conducted investigation. He examined the witnesses including the injured persons obtained injury reports from Pipili Hospital and Sree Hospital, Bhubaneswar, seized the weapon of offence, arrested the accused persons and finding prima facie case submitted charge sheet against some of the accused persons keeping the investigation open. 4. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, A.S.I. of police conducted investigation. He examined the witnesses including the injured persons obtained injury reports from Pipili Hospital and Sree Hospital, Bhubaneswar, seized the weapon of offence, arrested the accused persons and finding prima facie case submitted charge sheet against some of the accused persons keeping the investigation open. 4. Mr. Kali Prasana Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.03.2017 and co-accused persons has been released on bail in BLAPL No.7368 of 2017 and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and therefore, the chance of conviction of the petitioner is bleak and since the petitioner is in custody for more than one year, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered. He has filed the copy of the bail order of the co-accused in BLAPL No.7368 of 2017 which is taken on record. 5. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in BLAPL No.2946 of 2017 and his application for bail was rejected on 21.07.2017 as there are number of criminal antecedents against the petitioner and also on account of availability of prima facie material against him. It is contended that since the earlier bail application was rejected after submission of charge sheet and there is no change in the circumstances except that the petitioner has remained in custody for few months more, there is no scope for reconsideration of the bail application. It is contended that the co-accused Mantu @ Saroj Kumar Pradhan who has been enlarged on bail in BLAPL No.7368 of 2017 stands on a different footing and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the said accused or the co-accused persons namely, Subash Kumar Pradhan and Prakash Kumar Pradhan who were enlarged on bail in BLAPL No.2946 of 2017 while rejecting the application for bail of the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that there are as many as nineteen criminal antecedents against the petitioner and some of the cases are under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was granted bail in those cases but violating terms and condition of the bail orders, he indulged himself again and again in different criminal activities and therefore, the bail application should be rejected. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that there are as many as six injured persons namely, Ganesh Bira, Guru Prasad Sahu, Ashok Bhol, Pravat behera, Niranjan Rout and Susanta Pradhan and all of them have sustained grievous injury on the vital part of the body like head and therefore, in view of the criminal proclivity of the petitioner and nature and gravity of the accusation, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. At the time of hearing of the bail application earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the affidavits filed by the informant Rabindra Sahu @ Rabi Sahu and injured Guru Prasad Sahu and Ashok Kumar Bhol wherein it is mentioned that at the intervention of well wishers of both the groups, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they do not want to proceed any further in the case. The informant and two of the injured persons appeared through Advocate Mr. Dipankar Panigrahi. 7. The learned counsel for the State was directed to obtain instruction on the affidavits filed by the informant and two injured persons and the Inspector in charge was directed to remain present with instruction on affidavit. He has filed an application signed by the informant Rabindra Sahu and injured Guru Prasad Sahu relating to the amicable settlement between the parties. The Inspector in Charge stated that the other injured namely, Ashok Kumar Bhol was not available in the village for which the assertion taken in his affidavit could not be verified. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it is apparent that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit in BLAPL No.2946 of 2017 vide order dated 21.07.2017 on the ground of number of criminal antecedents against him and also availability of prima facie case. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it is apparent that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merit in BLAPL No.2946 of 2017 vide order dated 21.07.2017 on the ground of number of criminal antecedents against him and also availability of prima facie case. On perusal of the injury reports of the six injured persons, it appears that all of them have sustained grievous injury. Not only the informant but also the injured persons have attributed specific overt act against the petitioner in assaulting the injured Ashok Bhol. It is also not disputed that there are as many nineteen criminal antecedents against the petitioner and some of the cases are under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Even though some of the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail but the petitioner stands on a different footing not only because there is specific overt act against him but also there are criminal antecedents. Moreover parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail and there is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessary be granted to the accused where another co-accused has been granted bail. Merely because some of the witnesses including the informant have filed affidavit relating to amicable settlement between the parties but since there are other injured persons, therefore, such affidavits cannot be the ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Laxity in granting bail in serious offences creates an adverse impact on the society and makes the society a paradise for the criminals. The Court while granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In view of the nature and gravity of the accusation against the petitioner and the punishment prescribed for the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, it would not be proper to grant bail to the petitioner. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to move the learned trial Court for bail after examination of all the injured persons which shall be considered on its own merit. 10. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court for compliance.