Allowed

Kana Satya@Satyabadi Padhi@ Satyabrata Keshari Padhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Nov 2021BLAPL/7524/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for bail under Section 439 CrPC was disposed of allowing release of petitioner facing trial for a fatal attack where victims were selectively targeted and a bomb was thrown by co-accused. Conditions for FIR registration were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail with Rs.50,000 bond and two sureties; conditions to avoid criminal activity, attend court regularly, and report to IIC monthly.

Kana Satya@Satyabadi Padhi@ Satyabrata Keshari Padhi Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.7524 of 2021 Kana Saya @ Satyabadi Padhi @ …. Petitioner Satyabrata Kesari Padhi

¶3

Mr. J.K. Panda, Advocate

¶4

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

10.11.2021

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

¶12

This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Gosaninuagaon P.S. Case No.11 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 117(B) of 2013 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the grounds stated therein.

¶13

Perused the FIR and other documents, besides bail orders as at Annexure-4 series.

¶14

The FIR is by the complainant alleging therein that on the date of occurrence 29.1.2013 at about 8 AM, while he along with others were taking tea at a stall, at that time, the victim arrived and while he was parking his motor cycle near the tea stall, the accused persons and 4 to 5 others came in motor cycles and surrounded the victim and attacked him and also threw bomb, as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries and thereafter, shifted to hospital but

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

the doctor declared him dead. In that connection, after the FIR, Gosaninuagon P.S. Case No. 11(B) of 2013 was registered and during investigation, some of the accused persons arrested.

¶18

The petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Court on 26.7.2021 on execution of an NBW issued by the learned court below and since then, he is in custody.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a preliminary charge sheet was filed and then, a final, wherein, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused and thereafter, the court below issued the NBW as he was shown as an absconder. It is also submitted that the other accused persons, who are directly involved in the incident have been granted by this Court. While contending so, the bail orders as at Annexure-4 series have been brought to the notice of the Court and also contended that the accused persons, who in fact, threw the bomb on the victim are presently facing trial. It is contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner regarding any overt act being committed by him during the incident except conspiracy. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused is presently working as an IT consultant in IBM and considering the fact that the other accused persons, who are now facing trial being on bail, the accused may be enlarged with any conditions as deemed just and proper.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, alleged that the petitioner is involved in the conspiracy and read over statement of one witness, who had overheard regarding a discussion by him to eliminate the victim. Learned counsel for the informant also strongly opposed release of the petitioner on the ground that

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

he is also equally involved with other accused persons. It is also contended that other accused persons, who are on bail by the orders to the Court had been in custody for a reasonable before being enlarged, whereas, the petitioner absconded after the incident.

¶24

Some of the accused persons were charge sheeted in the year, 2013 itself. It is apprised to the Court that final charge sheet was filed in the year 2019. Learned counsel for the State submits that accused was charge sheeted in 2019 though his name appeared in the preliminary charge sheet and thereafter, warrant of arrest was issued. Perused the bail orders as at Annexure-4 series. No doubt, the petitioner absconded or avoided arrest and in 2019, charge sheet was filed against him. It is brought to notice of the Court that trial of the other accused persons is currently in progress.

¶25

Having regard to the above facts and the fact that final charge sheet is filed in the year 2019 and released accused persons are facing trial and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is on similar footing like some of the accused persons who are not shown to be involved in hurling of bomb and since he is arrested on the strength of an NBW issued by the court below, the Court, considering the totality of the circumstances, is of humble opinion that he should be released on bail with conditions. Hence, it is ordered.

¶26

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 court in seisin over of the matter with conditions

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

that he shall not involve himself in any such similar kind of criminal activities, while on bail; shall attend the court below on each date of posting of the case without fail till trial is concluded; and shall appear before the concerned IIC of the PS once in a month on every Sunday between 10 AM to 1 PM and continue to do so for the next six months period.

¶30

The BLAPL is disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶32

TUDU

¶33

(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶34

Page 4 of 3

Kana Satya@Satyabadi Padhi@ Satyabrata Keshari Padhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kana Satya@Satyabadi Padhi@ Satyabrata Keshari Padhi 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

Badal@ Akash Mukhi Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Mahanta @ Jhulu Vs State of Odisha

Soumyakant Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ratikanta Behera Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Srinibash Pradhan @ Mallick Vs State of Odisha