Dismissed

Basanta Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Aug 2020BLAPL/365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a bail application rejected previously by the Session Judge. The Court noted weak prosecution witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and an extra judicial confession, concluding that the petitioner's release cannot be granted due to the gravity of the accusation.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected; the petitioner remains to face trial.

Basanta Panda Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

BLAPL No. 365 of 2020

¶2

Basanta Panda ……. Petitioner -Vrs.- State of Odisha ……. Opp. Party

¶3

03.08.2020

¶4

This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶5

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

¶6

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with G.R. Case No.2362 of 2019 arising out of Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No.289 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for offences punishable under sections 364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code

¶7

The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge –cumSpecial Judge, (Vig.), Sambalpur which was rejected on 02.01.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased Jayashree Mishra was found missing from her own house for which a missing report was lodged before the IIC of Town police station, Sambalpur on 14.10.2011 and the F.I.R. was lodged only on 21.07.2019 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under sections 364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based

¶9

on circumstantial evidence and there is no clinching

¶10

material available on record against the petitioner and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand placed the statement of one Chaitanya Kunar @ Manu to show that how he was asked to dig the soil which according to the prosecution case was utilized for burying the dead body. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that in a very calculated manner, the entire incident has been planned and chalked out and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner should be rejected.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there was motive behind this commission of crime and the petitioner was last seen in the company of the deceased.

¶13

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, extra judicial confession by the petitioner before the labourer and other surrounding circumstances and the nature and gravity of the accusation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands rejected.

¶15

¶16

…………………..……

¶17

S.K. Sahoo, J.

Basanta Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Panda 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

Manoj Kumar Munda Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Kusa Badia Vs State of Odisha

Kunu @ Santosh Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Charida @ Chariba Munda Vs State of Odisha

Bikram Ready Vs State of Odisha