The single judge rejected the bail application of Bhima Turuk in a murder case involving sections 302, 201 and 506 IPC. The court held that a prima facie case existed and releasing the accused would adversely impact the fair trial.
Prayer for bail rejected and bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
BLAPL NO.9191 OF 2019
Bhima Turuk.
…….. Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha …….. Opp.party
O R D E R
The petitioner being in custody in C.T. Case No.32 of 2019, arising out of Kakiriguma P.S. Case No.47 of 2015, has filed this petition for his release on bail as his prayer for bail has been refused by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2019. The petitioner has been indicted in the aforesaid case for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 of I.P.C.
2. In the wake of the Pandemic Covid-19, the case was taken up through Video Conferencing and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State.
2
3. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput, but the same was withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner has again approached the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput for his release on bail, but the same having been refused, the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this bail application.
4. The allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased and his father, who were being indicted in a criminal case filed against them, were released on bail. Thereafter, they were found on the village road. Coaccused-Lita Turuk stated to have assaulted the deceased with an axe, as a result of which, he fell down and then the said axe was handed over to another coaccused – Satya Turuk who also stated to have assaulted the deceased repeatedly and thereafter the Informant shifted her deceased-husband to the hospital where the doctor declared him as received dead and the petitioner was had caught hold of him then. However, in the F.I.R. lodged, the name of the
3
petitioner does not find place in the accused column and only Lita Turuk and Satya Turuk were indicted. But, subsequently co-accused – Satya Turuk also implicated the petitioner and the Informant on being examined by the police stated that since the petitioner had extended threat to her she does not disclose the name of the petitioner in the F.I.R., but he was also one among the assailants. She in statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has also named the petitioner to be one of the culprits. Police, as such, filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and others. Prayer for bail of the petitioner having been refused by the Court below, this bail application has been filed by the petitioner for his release on bail.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of the Informant and the Investigating Officer in implicating the petitioner four years after the alleged occurrence ipso facto renders the whole prosecution set-up unreliable, particularly when the petitioner was not a stranger to the Informant’s family and when as per the own version of
4
the prosecution he had shifted the deceased to the hospital in a Bolero vehicle immediately after the assault. The learned counsel further submits that except the renewed and contradicting statements of the witnesses shown to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, there is no material to suggest participation of the petitioner in the alleged incident. In such premises, he submits to release the petitioner on bail.
6. Learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State, however, submits that the present being not a stage to evaluate the evidence or test the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, the contention of the petitioner is meritless. Citing the gravity of the indictment, he seeks for rejection of the bail application.
7. It is true that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the F.I.R. as an accused and subsequently the Informant has indicted him. But, at the stage of deciding prayer for bail of an accused, the Court are to look into the nature and character of evidence besides
5
the other considerations, but simultaneously a detailed documentation and appreciation of the evidence and it’s probative value is impermissible.
8. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, when the materials on record vis-à-vis the contention of the parties are addressed in this case, this Court is of the view that prima-facie case is found against the petitioner in a heinous and serious offence of murder which prescribes stringent punishment on conviction. The petitioner also prima-facie appears to have extended threat, that is why his name was not disclosed by the Informant at the first instance, but subsequently she disclosed the same before the police as well as before the Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has reason to believe that the release of the petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case at this stage shall have a serious and adverse impact on a fair trial. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prayer for bail of the petitioner is devoid of merit.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected and the BLAPL stands disposed of being
6
dismissed.
As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
………………… S.Pujahari, J.
MRS
7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail considering the prima facie case of murder and potential adverse impact on fair trial.
Whether the delay in implicating the petitioner by the informant renders the prosecution set-up unreliable enough to grant bail.
Whether the court is permitted to evaluate evidence at the stage of bail application for a serious offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhima Turuk
State of Odisha
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
