Chandana @ Chandan Behera vs State Of Odisha

Sashikanta Mishra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. B.S. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the informant.

It is submitted that the petitioner No.2 has been arrested in the meantime, for which the anticipatory bail application in respect of him may be treated as not-pressed.

The ABLAPL in respect of petitioner No.2 is dismissed as not-pressed.

The petitioner No.1 is apprehending arrest in connection with Rambha P.S. Case No.731 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1951 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote for the alleged commission of offence under sections 147/148/302/326/307/149 of IPC.

It is alleged that one K. Padma Reddy being the owner of an auto-rickshaw was travelling with one Laxmi Nrusingha Panda from Purusottampur. On the way, around 27 persons stopped the auto rickshaw and assaulted him by means of deadly weapons causing serious injuries to which he ultimately succumbed. Accordingly, the FIR names 27 persons including the present petitioner. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that there is no evidence that the petitioner had any role to play in the assault on the deceased. Prosecution is attempting to draw adverse inference basing on the prior enmity between two groups in the village.

Learned State Counsel has placed the statement of the injured witness-Laxmi Nrusingha Panda. It is seen that said witness has specifically named three persons as being the assailants, namely, Niranjan, Papu and Swadhin. They were also identified by him in the test identification parade. Further, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner and several other persons had conspired to kill the diseased and had engaged the aforementioned three persons for the purpose. He relied upon the so called call detail records showing multiple interactions between the conspirators and the assailants.

Mr. B.S. Das, learned Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner and persons belonging to his group had openly threatened the informant (wife of the diseased) of doing away with the life of her husband. They also conspired to give effect to their evil design. Mr. Das has produced copy of an FIR lodged by the wife of the deceased leading to registration of Rambha P.S. Case No.94 of 2024 registered under Sections 457/341/294/195-A/506 of IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. As per this FIR, during pendency of this case the petitioner and members of his group have allegedly threatened the informant to withdraw this case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the materials available in the case diary including the statement of the witnesses, it becomes clear that the informant is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. Secondly, the injured eyewitness- Laxmi Nrusingha Panda, who is the best witness, does not name the petitioner but specifically names three other persons as being the assailants whom he identified in the T.I. parade later. The only evidence projected by the prosecution against the petitioner is certain call detail records and an act of alleged threat held out by the petitioner and members of his group to the informant prior to the occurrence. This Court is of the view that neither the call detail record nor the so-called threat held out by the petitioner prior to the occurrence or the previous enmity can be treated as conclusive proof of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials in the case diary while not being inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1- Chandan @ Chandan Behera, I feel persuaded to dispose of the ABLAPL by directing him to surrender before the Court below within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to move for bail. In such event, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court below may deem fit and proper to impose including the following conditions:

(i) He shall personally appear before the IIC of Rambha Police Station on every Sunday at 10 a.m. for a period of six months and such fact shall be certified by the IIC to the concerned Court once in a month. The Court below shall monitor such fact by taking regular updates from the I.O.

(ii) He shall personally appear before the Court in seisin over the matter on each date of posting of the case without seeking any representation and in case of even a single default, the Court below shall issue NBW to take him into custody.

(iii) He shall not approach, threaten, coerce or pressurize the victim and other prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.

In case of violation of any of the conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution/informant to seek cancellation of the bail.

The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

…………………………….