Partly allowed

Gandu Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Nov 2020BLAPL/2940/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a bail application under Cr.P.C. Sec. 439 in a murder case. Bail for petitioner Gandu Naik was rejected due to specific overt acts. Petitioner Tunguru Naik was released on bail due to lack of evidence against him regarding the overt assault.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner no.1 (Gandu Naik) bail rejected; Petitioner no.2 (Tunguru Naik) released on bail with Rs. 50,000 bond and sureties.

Gandu Naik Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

BLAPL No. 2940 of 2020

¶2

1. Gandu Naik 2. Tunguru Naik ……. Petitioners -Vrs.- State of Odisha ……. Opp. Party

¶3

……. Opp. Party

¶4

24.11.2020 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶5

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

¶6

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.388 of 2019 arising out of Sorada P.S. Case No.191 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Sorada for offences punishable under sections 341/294/506/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶7

The petitioners moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar which was rejected on 21.03.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 13.11.2019 and they have been charge sheeted under sections 341/294/506/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the occurrence in question took place on 12.11.2019 and a sudden quarrel arose between the parties, during course of which, the deceased Manoj Nayak assaulted the father of petitioner no.1 and by way retaliation, the petitioner no.1 gave a blow on the head of the deceased by means of a wooden plank and the co-accused Babula Nayak assaulted the

¶9

deceased by means of a Kati and no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner no.2 Tunguru Naik so far as the assault on the deceased is concerned, though it is stated that the petitioner no.2 assaulted to the parents of the deceased by a sharp cutting weapon. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the nature of overt act alleged against the petitioners, the bail application of the petitioners may be favourably considered.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produced the case diary and placed the post mortem report which indicates that the deceased had sustained five external injuries, out of which two are stab wounds, one injury is on the head and other injuries are cut injuries and he placed the statement of the injured Soudakar Nayak who has stated about specific overt act against the petitioner no.1 as well as co-accused Babula Nayak relating to the assault on the deceased.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner no.1 Gandu Naik, specific overt act attributed against him and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased as per the post mortem report, I am not inclined to release the petitioner no.1 on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of petitioner no.1 Gandu Naik stands rejected.

¶12

So far as the petitioner no.2 Tunguru Naik is concerned, since no overt act is alleged against him as per eye witnesses account relating to the assault on the

¶13

deceased and further taking into account his period of detention in judicial custody, I am inclined to release him on bail.

¶14

Let the petitioner no.2 namely, Tunguru Naik be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000.00(rupees fifty thousand) with two local 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.

¶15

The petitioner no.1 Gandu Naik is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of material witnesses in the trial Court.

¶16

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

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

¶18

…………………..……

¶19

Gandu Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandu Naik 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

Case details

Similar cases

Gouranga Roul Vs State of Odisha

Soumya Ranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Tahasil Karuan Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Satnami Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kumar Nath Vs State of Odisha

Prasant Bagh Vs State of Odisha