The High Court dismissed a Criminal Bail Application filed by Gopinath Majhi against the stay order rejecting his bail in a murder and culpable homicide case arising from a dispute over a loan and alleged assault.
Application for bail rejected. Bail sought by the appellant is 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 3 OF 2020
Gopinath Majhi
…. Appellant Mr. S.S.Ray-2, Advocate
-versus-
…. Respondents Mr. Sk. Zafrulla, Additional Standing Counsel
State of Odisha and others
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI
Order No.
ORDER
06.07.2021
08 .
1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel
for informant and learned counsel for the State.
3. This CRLA has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aska in S.T. No. 56/2019(T) arising out of Sheragada P.S. Case No. 99 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 173 of 2018, registered for the alleged commission of offence under sections 364,302,201,120-B/34 of IPC read with section 25(1-B)(a) & 27 of Arms Acts and section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PA) Act., wherein the learned court below has rejected the bail application of the appellant.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the informant, Judhistir Das lodged a written report before the police alleging therein that on 11.11.2018 he got information that his elder brother, Laxmi Das was brutally assaulted. On account of this information, the informant along with two others rushed to the spot. Thereafter it came to light that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the informant’s brother and had refused to return the same due to which they had been involved in a quarrel previously. In the continuity of the
// 2 //
same dispute, the brother of the informant was assaulted by the appellant along with others.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of offence have not been established by the prosecution. The evidence on record which are discrepant and circumstantial, do not substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant. The appellant has not been named in the FIR. The court below has solely relied on the version recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no witness to the occurrence. Nirakar Swain who is one co-accused has already been released on bail in CRL No. 610 of 2019.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the appellant. He submitted that the brother of the informant died due to gunshot injury and the case has been turned to section 302 IPC. The present appellant is the main culprit and the allegation against him is very serious in nature and there are strong prima facie materials to implicate him in the commission of the crime.
7. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the appellant, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
8. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed.
9. As the Lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
(S. K. Panigrahi)
Judge
AKP-Dutta
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant charged with murder, culpable homicide, and offences under the Arms and SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Acts.
Whether the High Court is satisfied that the appellant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail given the gravity of the accusation.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Gopinath Majhi
State of Odisha
S. K. Panigrahi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
