High CourtsSingle Bench

Jitu @ Jitendra Dehury vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 20 February 2024 · Citation: (2024) 02 OHC CK 0180

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sashikanta Mishra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 546 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 438 words

Sashikanta Mishra, J

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

The petitioner is in custody since 15.12.2019 in connection with Daitari P.S. Case No.80 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 17/30 of 2021-2020 arising out of G.R. Case No.1867 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC.

4.

Petitioner’s earlier application  for  bail  being  BLAPL  No.5233 of 2020 was rejected by this Court. His successive bail application being BLAPL No.12838 of 2022 was disposed of directing the Court below to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months granting him liberty to renew his prayer, if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period. Such order was passed on 28.07.2023. As it appears, 10 out of 12 witnesses have been examined so far. The informant and the I.O. remain to be examined. The trial Court has submitted a report stating that the case is posted to 26.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 for evidence of the remaining witnesses.

5.

Reading of the depositions of the witnesses reveal that none of them has seen the occurrence nor said anything to directly implicate the petitioner. However, there is evidence of one Kanhu Tudu (P.W.-4), who was the last person to see the petitioner and the deceased together. It cannot therefore, be said that there is no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in custody for more than 4 and ½ years. Though trial is at the fag end, yet there is no guarantee that the same would be concluded at any time in the near future. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of his long incarceration certain domestic problems have cropped up in the family relating to the ancestral properties, which the petitioner is required to attend to.

6.

Taking into consideration all the above facts, the bail application is disposed of directing the Court below to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of six weeks from the date of his actual release on such terms and conditions as the Court in seisin over the mater may deem fit and proper to impose including the condition that he shall personally appear before the trial Court on each date of posting of the case during the interim bail period.

7.

The petitioner shall surrender to custody immediately after expiry of the interim bail period.

8.

The BLAPL stands disposed of.

…………………………..