Santosh Das vs State Of Odisha

Sashikanta Mishra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

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

The Petitioner is in custody since 19.9.2022 in connection with Kodala P.S. Case No.486 dt. 19.9.2021 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 13/2022 pending in the court learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kodala which arises out of G.R. Case No.424/2021 for the alleged commission of the offence under Sections 302/307/341/294/324/506/34 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case is that the Petitioner and 5 other persons jointly assaulted one Kalu Charan Nahak by deadly weapon causing his death. It is further alleged that they assaulted the informant (Sagar Das) causing injury on his person.

Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the Petitioner, draws the attention of this Court to the deposition of Sagar Das, who has been examined as P.W.8. Mr. Pujari would argue that though the said witness specifically stated that he was also assaulted and received injuries and was shifted to medical yet, there is absolutely no medical evidence in support thereof. The Charge Sheet is entirely silent as regards any injury to the said witness. Mr. Pujari further refers to the evidence of Minati Nahak (P.W.10), who is an eye witness and has described the occurrence vividly in cross-examination under paragraph-13. The name of the Petitioner is absent. On such basis, it is submitted that there is no evidence to show the complicity of the Petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that regardless of the fact that the injured-informant did not sustain any injury, the fact remains there is evidence to show that all the accused persons jointly assaulted the deceased causing his death. Therefore, the complicity of the Petitioner cannot be ruled out.

Having considered the rival submissions and on going through the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the informant’s version is somewhat shaky and cannot be relied upon particularly, when compared to the specific statement of P.W.10 attributing definite acts of assault to different co-accused persons. Significantly, there is no mention of the Petitioner in her evidence. All this, prima facie, creates a reasonable doubt in the mind as regards the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

In such view of the matter, I am inclined to take a lenient view. Let the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case including the condition that he shall personally appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the case without seeking representation through counsel.

The BLAPL is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

…………………………