Bipin Behera vs State Of Odisha

I.A. No.65 of 2022

This is an application under Section 389 off Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard.

Perused the impugned judgment.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of thee Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one year by thee learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar vide judgment and order dated 30.03.2019 passed in S.T. Case No.244/137 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased Jhili Behera and he has remained in judicial custody since 16.02.2016. The parents of the petitioner, who faced trial along with the petitioner have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and even though paper book has been prepared, there is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in thee near future and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favorably considered.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized on 10.03.2015 and the deceased died on 16.02.20016. The doctor (P.W.12), who conducted the post mortem examination, haas opined that the cause of death to be asphyxia due too manual throttling and the occurrence in question took place in the bed room of the couple i.e. the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner has not offered any explanation as to how the deceased died. Learned counsel further submitted that the parents of the petitioner, who faced trial along with the petitioner, havee been acquitted as they were residing separately and there was no clinching evidence against them.

In the cases of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another -Vrs.- The Sttate reported in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal Reporrts 427, it is held as follows:-

“21. Stage has reached to express our view on the question whether the convicts who have been in jail for three years because of non-disposal of their appeals could claim their release on bail with the aid of Art.21 of the Constitution? According to us, Art.21 demands that the cases of such convicts have too be liberally viewed while examining the question of their release on bail and in run-of-mill cases enlargement on bail in the first instance for a temporary period of say three months for cogent personal reasons may not be refused.

We have mentioned about temporary release in the first instance, to enable all concerned to watch the performance of the convict during the interregnum. If it would be found that he has misused the liberty, the period of his release on bail would not be enlarged. If, however, there be nothing against the convict, he would merit release on bail till the disposal of his appeal. Of course, for special reasons, which would include the nature of the crime and the antecedents of the convict, the benefit of release on bail even for a temporary period may be denied. The types of cases in which this benefit should be denied cannot be laid down exhaustively but should be akin to those about which reference has been made earlier. This apart, if the character and antecedent of the convict be such as would give ground to believe that his release on bail may not be safe, he too may be denied the protective shield of Art.21.”

Considering the submissions made by thee learned counsel for the respective parties, in view of the nature of evidence on record and particularly the post mortem report finding, while not inclining to release the petitioner on baail on merit, but taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and keeping in view the ratio laid down in thee case of Leti (supra) and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, we are inclined to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of three months from the date of release and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court immediately on expiry of the three months period.

For the above period, let the appellant-petitioner be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court subject to condition that shall not indulge in any criminal activities in any manner.

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of interim bail.

Learned counsel for the State shall produce the report from thee Inspector in-charge of Keonjhhar Town Police Station regarding the conduct of the petitioner while on interim bail.

The I.A. iss disposed of accordingly.

A free coppy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.

JCRLA No.34 of 2019

List this matter in the week commencing from 30.09.2024. Learned counsel for the appellant shall produce the surrender certificate of the appellant on the next date.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

.………………………