Ulu @ Jugal K. Pradhan vs State

S. Pujahari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

It appears that the petitioner in this case being in custody in G.R. Case No. 675 of 2013 arising out of Nayagarh P.S. Case 217 of 2013 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Nayagarh has come to this Court for his release on bail. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.

The materials on record would go to show that the deceased said to have stolen a mobile phone from one of the members of a ''Bol Bom'' party who had camped in the village of the petitioner on the way to temple Lord Shiba, in the month of Shraban. The petitioner knowing the aforesaid fact said to have asked his villages to search the deceased and consequently deceased was brought being assaulted by the co-accused persons and the petitioner said to have tied him with a pole inside the Akhada House of the village. The other persons further assaulted him. The deceased sustained injuries and thereafter he was thrown on the verandah of his house in a critical condition. His family members then shifted him to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had never intended the death of the deceased nor the persons who had assaulted him had intended the death of the deceased and as such no offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is a permanent resident of his village and there is no chance of tampering prosecution evidence, if allowed to go on bail. Hence, the petitioner may be released on

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail advancing the submission that the petitioner is the main culprit in this case, inasmuch as at his instance the deceased was brutally assaulted by the co-accused persons and on account of such assault he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. The offence alleged being heinous and serious in nature providing capital punishment, the petitioner should not be released on bail.

Regard being had to the nature of accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner, circumstances in which the offence said to have been committed, the role played by the petitioner and there being no material on record to show that the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedent and above all the fact that hardly any material being there to suggest the fact that he is likely to flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if enlarged on bail, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Hence, let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter.

The bail application stands disposed of being allowed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.