P.Shyam Sundar Prusty vs State Of Odisha

B.P.Routray, J

The Appellant-Petitioner, namely, P.Shyam Sundar Prusty, who has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302/120-B IPC read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has renewed his prayer for bail after it was earlier rejected on 4th October, 2021.

The Petitioner was arrested on 27th June, 2014 and since then he is inside custody. It is submitted that after his prayer for bail was rejected on 4th October 2021, he was released from jail on furlough extended from time to time for a total period of one year and nine months and has been again lodged in jail.

The prayer for bail of the Appellant-Petitioner is opposed as usual by learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing for the Informant. It is submitted on their behalf that, this Appellant is having four other criminal cases against him and his release would put threat perception to the witnesses with apprehension of danger to the members of Informant’s family.

The facts giving rise to conviction of the Appellant have been dealt with by this Court in earlier order dated 4th October, 2021 and the same are not discussed here again to avoid reiteration. It remains undisputed that four other accused persons convicted along with present Appellant have already been released on bail in the meantime since long.

The main objection put-forth by learned State Counsel and from the side of the Informant is that, release of the Petitioner will put the members of the Informant family and witnesses under a state of threat. But the fact remains that interim release of the Appellant on furlough for a period of one year and nine months passed off peacefully without happening of any such untoward incidence and no single complaint was made against the Appellant. Here the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellant is that, there are total four other cases registered against the appellant and three out of them are relating to alleged threat given to witnesses. In one of those four cases, though the final form was submitted stating ‘No Clue’, but the same was reopened after arrest of the Petitioner. Another case i.e. Khallikote P.S.Case No.198 dated 21st September, 2014 has been ended in acquittal. Other two cases i.e. Khallikote P.S.Case No.265/2016 and 253/2016 were not initially registered against the Petitioner as an accused, but his name has been added subsequently though admittedly he was in inside custody during that relevant period.

The law governing release of a convict on bail under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. pending appeal has been set at rest in several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [see Kashmira Singh vrs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, Gudikanti Narasimhulu vrs. P.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240, Babu Singh vrs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579, Leti @ Jaydeb Roy vrs. State of Orissa, (1990) SCC Ori 313, Akhtari Bi vrs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh vrs. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387, and Preet Pal Singh vrs. State of U.P. (2020) 8 SCC 645]

There is no quarrel at the Bar over the proposition that while exercising discretion under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court need not go deep into the merits of the appeal and is not required to examine the evidences in detail. A prima facie merit in the contention of the Appellant is to be seen while considering the application for bail and the discretion should be exercised in a judicious manner.

In the case at hand, the evidences brought against the Appellant are mostly circumstantial in nature. The prosecution has examined forty six witnesses on its behalf. The circumstances relating to conspiracy against the Appellant to pose him as the master mind are relating to visit of the deceased to his cashew factory, publication of news items about employment of child labour in his cashew factory, meetings of minds between all the convicts at different places, call detail records of mobile phones etc. As stated earlier, this Court is not entering into the details of merit of such evidences brought on record by the prosecution witnesses. Nevertheless, the detention of the Petitioner inside custody since 27th June, 2014 and the fact that nothing adverse has been reported against the Appellant during his interim release on furlough remaining admitted, the apprehension raised from the side of the Informant are found unsupported by materials. The conduct of the Petitioner during his interim release remained inviolable and without any disruption of law and order. Thus, considering long detention of the Petitioner and release of other convicts on bail in the meantime, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail.

It is directed to release the Appellant on bail pending appeal for fifty thousand rupees with two sureties each for the like amount in S.T. Case No.59 of 2015(T) / S.T. Case No.51 of 2019 with such other conditions to be fixed by learned trial court.

The I.A. is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per Rules.

…………………………..