Single judge court granted bail to the petitioner in a Section 302/201 IPC case. The court noted the voluntary surrender, lack of direct evidence, and absence of clear motive while the case was pending before the Session Court.
Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BLAPL No. 3231 of 2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo in Court stating therein that in the meantime, the case has already been committed to the Court of Session and it is now pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No.96 of 2018.
The memo is taken on record.
This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.96 of 2018 arising out of Sundargarh Sadar P.S. Case No.47 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh for offences punishable under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh which was rejected on 03.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the Court below on 16.04.2018 and in the meantime, after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the occurrence in question stated to have taken place on 07.04.2018 when the deceased Basanti Nayak left her house telling before her family members that she was going to the house of the petitioner to collect the outstanding loan dues and thereafter, she did not return
2
back and ultimately her dead body was found in a jungle on 10.04.2018 which was identified by her family members and on the very day, Krupasindhu Nayak who is the brother-in-law of the deceased lodged the first information report and implicated the petitioner on suspicion. He further submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the petitioner and the deceased were cousins and materials indicate that on the previous occasions also, the deceased had advanced some loan to the petitioner which was repaid and both the petitioner and the deceased belonged to different villages which are also situated under different police stations. Even though one Jay Prakash Sahu who is a shopkeeper stated that two persons had come on 07.04.2018 to purchase towels from his shop but he has not stated that those two persons are the petitioner and the deceased. He further submitted that the only material available on record is the confessional statement of the petitioner before police. One Arnapurna Sathapathy has rather stated that the petitioner was in her house on 07.04.2018 for a substantial period. It is submitted that in absence of any clinching circumstantial evidence and taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and while not disputing that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, fairly submits that the person concerned who is a shopkeeper has not that the petitioner
3
and the deceased were last seen together prior to the death of the deceased. He placed the post mortem report which indicates that the body of the deceased, which was found in the jungle, was in a decomposed stage and it was not possible on the part of the doctor to give final opinion regarding the cause of death.
skb
Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence, the nature of circumstantial evidence available on record and absence of any clear cut motive behind the commission of crime and taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000.00 (rupees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.
Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
………………….. S. K. Sahoo, J.
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail considering the circumstantial evidence and lack of direct evidence in the case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
the Petitioner
the State
S. K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
