A single judge of the High Court of Orissa granted bail to the petitioner accused of murder, considering the substantial progress of the trial, doubts regarding prosecution evidence, and lack of testimonial support from key witnesses.
The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2120 of 2021
K. Goutam Pradhan
…. Petitioner Mr.S.D.Das, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opposite Party Mr. Deepak Ranjan Parida, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH ORDER 05.08.2021
Order No.
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
submits that here there being no direct evidence to connect the Petitioner with the murder of Bhabani Gouda, the prosecution has projected some circumstances in putting the Petitioner to trial. It is submitted that the circumstances projected are:- (a) the Petitioner being in love with the deceased had all the intention to finally wriggle out of the bondage as he was no more interested to marry her, which is said to be the motive behind the crime; (b) after recovery of the dead body, the Petitioner being taken to custody, he has given recovery of a stone; and (c) said recovery was pursuant to his statement as claimed to be admissible under section 27 of the Evidence
Act.
Inviting the attention of the Court to the statements of P.Ws.7 and 8, he next submits that these two witnesses to the said seizure of stone have not supported the prosecution case and having turned hostile in cross-examination, no such material has also been brought on record so as to favour the prosecution. It is submitted that even the evidence of P.W.5, who is the uncle of the deceased as at paragraph-15 makes that factum of disclosure by the Petitioner doubtful. He further submits that the statement said to have been given by the Petitioner that he pressed the neck of the deceased in causing her death is not admissible in the eye of law and that would fall flat if the post mortem report is given a plain reading. In view of all these above, when most of the material witnesses in support of those projected circumstances have already been
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
examined and now there remains no scope for the Petitioner to tamper the evidence as also the question of the Petitioner fleeing from justice does not arise, he urges for reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner as according to him, detention of the Petitioner in custody till conclusion of the trial would serve no useful purpose.
Mr.Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, in response, submits that although P.W.5 has stated the Petitioner to have disclosed before him as to have killed his neice, yet in the same breath, he has stated that the Petitioner had taken the police near that mango tree and those for proper consideration have to be read together.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
Violation of any of the condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D.Dash) Judge
Basu
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a murder case where the trial has made substantial progress?
Whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses who turned hostile affects the requirements for granting bail?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Goutam Pradhan
State of Odisha
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
