Allowed

Raju Khadia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 May 2019BLAPL/3234/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 439 CrPC for bail was heard in a murder case. The High Court reconsidered a previously rejected bail plea, noting material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' cross-examinations. Relying on the progress of the trial and material discrepancy in witness statements, the Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties.

Raju Khadia Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

BLAPL No. 3234 of 2018

¶2

15.05.2019

¶3

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

¶4

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.172/22 of 2016-17 arising out of Rengali P.S. Case No.13 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur for alleged commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.04.2016 and his earlier bail application was rejected in BLAPL No.7265 of 2017 vide order dated 25.10.2017 relying on the statements of three witnesses namely Priya Khadia, Ajit Khadia and Sukun Khadia. He further submitted that in the meantime, the trial has commenced and the aforesaid three witnesses have been examined in the trial Court as P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W.3 Priya Khadia who is the daughter of the petitioner as well as the deceased though stated in the examination in chief that her father set fire to her mother (deceased) by means of a match stick but she admitted in her cross-examined that she stated before the police that on the date of occurrence, her father was sleeping at a little distance from them being drunken and that a Dibiri was burning near her mother and at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m., fire caught on her mother from the Dibiri. Learned counsel further placed the evidence of P.W.2 Ajit Khadia who though stated in the examination in chief about the dying declaration made by the deceased that the petitioner set

¶6

¶7

skb

¶8

her on fire but in the cross-examination and it has been confronted to him that he has not stated before the police that the petitioner set her on fire rather stated that the deceased disclosed that her saree was set on fire from the Dibiri light and her husband had not set fire to her. Learned counsel placed the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ajit Khadia which indicates that the said witness while stating about the dying declaration of the deceased has not implicated the petitioner in any manner. He further submitted that P.W.1 Sukun Khadia has not supported the prosecution case for which she has declared hostile. It is contended that in view of the change in the circumstances after the rejection of the earlier bail application and since the prosecution case at the initial stage was that the deceased caught fire on account of light from Dibiri (lamp) which has been changed at the subsequent stage that the petitioner set on her fire and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably reconsidered. He files the copies of the depositions which are taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and fairly submitted that the P.W.3 Priya Khadia has not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement about the petitioner setting fire to the deceased. He stated that P.W.2 Ajit Khadia in his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioner poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire which was disclosed to him by the deceased.

¶10

¶11

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, progress of trial and the evidence of three materials witnesses who have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 before the trial Court as well as taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and direct the petitioner to be released on bail.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.

¶14

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

¶15

………………….. S. K. Sahoo, J.

¶16

Raju Khadia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Khadia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk.Azharuddin Vs State of Odisha

Milu@Pintu Naik Vs State of Odisha

Dipu@Kalua Behera Vs State of Odisha

Uma Shankar Joshi@Sibu Vs State of Odisha

Kanhu Charan Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Mukesh Mandal Vs State of Orissa