Allowed

Aita Podiami v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Nov 2021BLAPL/3638/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court, noting the petitioner's similar placement to another accused already granted bail and the absence of specific allegations in the FIR against him, enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions due to parity of circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two local solvent sureties for similar amount each.

Aita Podiami Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 3638 of 2021

¶3

Aita Podiami

¶4

State of Odisha

¶5

…. Petitioner Mr.Jugala Kishore Panda, Advocate -versus-

¶6

…. Opposite Party Mr. Abhinandan Parida, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 02.11.2021

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

¶13

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Mathili P.S. Case No.109 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 28 of 2020 (G.R.Case No. 494 of 2018) pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri.

¶14

Perused the F.I.R. and other police papers including the charge sheet.

¶15

As per the F.I.R., the occurrence took place on 23^rd October, 2018. In the F.I.R. the complainant alleged that his elder son and one Raidhara Durua had gone to see Jatra where his son was seriously wounded by some persons, where after, he was shifted from the spot in an auto rickshaw but on the way he breathed his last and later, learnt that he was killed by the Maoist and their supporters.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the trial is presently continuing and all material witnesses have been examined and there is no incriminating evidence on record to suggest the involvement of the accused, who is also not named in the F.I.R. It is also contended that another accused, who is similarly placed has been granted bail by this Court. A copy of the bail order dated 10.3.2021 in BLAPL No. 6994 of 2020 is filed before the Court today, while contending that accused, namely, Trinath Bhumia to be on bail. It is also contended that the petitioner is similarly situated like the other accused, who is granted bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the release of the petitioner on the ground that the trial is in progress and likely to be over and it is in respect of an incident during which the deceased was killed by the Maoist and their supporters.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners made the Court to go through the deposition of prosecution witnesses as at Annexure-3 series.

¶19

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a perusal of the F.I.R., it is apparently made to understand that the name of the accused does not find a place therein.

¶20

Having regard to the contents of the F.I.R. and the circumstances leading to the death of the victim and the fact that the another accused, namely, Trinath Bhumia has been granted bail by this Court in BLAPL No. 6944 of 2020 and in absence of any specific role being attributed to the accused and considering his period of detention which is since 2019, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶21

case which shall be decided at the end of trial, is of the considered view that the petitioner on the principle of parity should be enlarged on bail with conditions.

¶22

In the result, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below in seisin over the matter with conditions that he shall not be involved any such criminal activities, while on bail; and shall conduct himself properly; and shall attend the trial on each date of posting till conclusion of trial without fail.

¶23

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order may be issued
as per rules.
(R.K.Pattanaik)
Judge

¶24

Aita Podiami v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aita Podiami 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

Achyuta Das Vs State of Odisha

Maheswar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Abhisek Naik Vs State of Odisha

Gandhi Dalei Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Manhira Vs State of Odisha

Pintu Rout Vs State of Odisha