Rusia Muli vs State Of Odisha

I.A. NO.175 OF 2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Heard.

Perused the impugned judgment.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C. and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Gajapati vide judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 passed in S.T. Case No.140 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.08.2016 and the occurrence in question took place on 13.08.2016. Learned counsel further submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the main circumstances are the extra judicial confession before the villagers in a village meeting and the last seen of the appellant in the company of the deceased. The learned counsel further submits that the evidence on record does not form a complete chain so as to unerringly point towards the guilty of the accused and there are good chances of success in the appeal and therefore, the bail application may be favorably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.1, a witness to the extra judicial confession so also P.W.3, the witness to the last seen and he also placed the evidence of the doctor (P.W.15) who stated to have noticed ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is shock, which was the combined effect of neurogenic and hemorrhage.

In the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and another -Vrs.- The State reported in (1990) 3 Orissa Criminal Reports 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 to 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 the learned counsel for the respective parties and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and absence of 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 and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court on expiry of the said interim period.

Let the petitioner be released on interim bail for the aforesaid period to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent local sureties each for the like amount to his satisfaction with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper including the condition that he shall not indulge in any criminal activities while on interim bail.

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

Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

..…………………………….