Dismissed

Dosu@Dusmanta Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2019BLAPL/64/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case involving severance of hands, the Single Judge rejected the plea due to the gravity of injuries and eye witness accounts, allowing a future application only after eyewitness examination in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

BLAPL dismissed; petitioners to renew prayer after eye witness examination.

Dosu@Dusmanta Behera Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

BLAPL No. 64 of 2019

¶2

11.03.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

¶3

Learned counsel for the petitioners files the surrender certificate which is taken on record.

¶4

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. (Sessions) Case No.117 of 2018 arising out of Balimi P.S. Case No.28 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Hindol for alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

The petitioners moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal which was rejected on 31.10.2018.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the son of the petitioner no.2 and they are in judicial custody since 02.05.2018 and in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the occurrence in question took place on 01.05.2018 and as per the eye witness account of one Chagala Mohapatra, the petitioner no.1 assaulted the deceased Gurubaria Behera by means of axe and petitioner no.2 assaulted the deceased by means of lathi. He further submitted that the doctor’s query report indicates that the cause of death was possible due to axe and therefore, the bail application of petitioner no.2 who alleged to have assaulted the deceased by means of lathi may be favourably considered.

¶7

¶8

Learned counsel for the State produced the case diary and opposed the prayer for bail and placed the statements of the eye witnesses, post mortem report as well as the query report.

¶9

On perusal of the post mortem, it indicates that the right hand of the deceased was severed from the elbow joint and similarly left hand was severed from the wrist joint. So far as the injuries nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned those are lacerated wound on vital part of the body. Even though the doctor has given such a report but in view of the nature of injuries particularly 3, 4 and 5 are concerned sustained by the deceased, the part of the body on which those injuries have been caused and the eye witness account, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

¶10

skb

¶11

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed.

¶12

The petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after the examination of the eye witnesses before the learned trial Court.

¶13

………………….. S. K. Sahoo, J.

¶14

¶15

Dosu@Dusmanta Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dosu@Dusmanta Behera 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

Butula@Sanjib Mekap Vs State of Odisha

Manager,M/S.I.C.I.C.I.Lombard G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Ritanjali Samal

Reliance G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Minati Panda

Jiten Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Subhransu Nag Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Naik Vs State of Odisha