Dismissed

Debendra Kahali @ Deben v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Sept 2020BLAPL/3061/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail application under Cr.P.C. s. 439 in a murder case (302/34 IPC). The court refused bail despite a charge sheet and alleged lack of eyewitnesses, rejecting the plea that evidence was circumstantial and non-clinching. The petitioner may renew the prayer after material witness examination.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; petitioner may renew prayer after examination of material witnesses.

Debendra Kahali @ Deben Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

BLAPL No. 3061 of 2020

¶2

DEBENDRA KAHALI @ DEBEN … PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

STATE OF ODISHA

... OPP.PARTY

08.09.2020 The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 520 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1608 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda for alleged commission of offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Jharsuguda by order dated 05.03.2020.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.08.2019 and charge sheet has already been submitted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that the occurrence in question took place on 19.08.2019 night and there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no clinching circumstantial evidence appearing

¶11

against the petitioner and the materials indicate that after the alleged incident, the petitioner came to the house of the deceased and informed the family members that the deceased had sustained injuries and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, placed the statement of one Bikash Sahu, who has stated about the last seen and holding of feast of the deceased in the company of the petitioner and another co-accused in the Panchayat Office in the occurrence night. He further submitted that three persons were there and the deceased sustained multiple injuries on his body and the cause of death was on account of brain hemorrhage and shock and therefore, the petitioner and other co-accused appear to be the authors of the crime.

¶13

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of accusation and even though there is no direct evidence in the case, but the manner in which the crime has been committed and the nature of circumstantial evidence available on record and particularly the post mortem report findings, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses in the trial Court. Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.

¶14

…………………..……

¶15

S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶16

PKSahoo

Debendra Kahali @ Deben v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debendra Kahali @ Deben 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

Umakanta Malik Vs State of Odisha

Subash Mandal @ Subash Chandra Mandal Vs State of Odisha

Mrutyunjay Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Tandi Vs State of Odisha

Suraj Bhue Vs State of Odisha

Arup Ratan Haldar Vs State of Odisha