Allowed

Raghu@Bhabani Shankar Prusty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Dec 2021CRLA/295/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed appeal under Section 14-A of SC/ST (POA) Act. Considering absence of Section 302 IPC charges, lack of material for Section 306 IPC case (alleged scolding and wage dispute), and period of detention, released appellants on bail subject to supervision by lower court.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail on such terms and conditions as the lower Court may fix

Raghu@Bhabani Shankar Prusty Vs State of Odisha — Caste Atrocities | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLA No. 295 of 2021

¶3

1. Raghu @ Bhabani Shankar Prusty

¶4

2. Mantu @ Sarbeswar Sahoo …. Appellants Mr. S.R. Mohapatra,Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State of Orissa 2. Sukumari Bhoi …. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sibani Shankar Pradhan, A.G.A. None (for Respondent No.2)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

01.12.2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sibani Shankar Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶16

Though notice has been served on Respondent no.2 through the I.I.C., Banki Police Station on 19.09.2021, none has appeared on her behalf and none appeared when the matter is called.

¶17

This is an appeal under Section 14-A of S.C. & S.T. (POA) Amendment Act in connection with C.T. Case No. 41 of 2021 corresponding to Athagarh P.S. Case No.48 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer Special Court, under SC/ST (POA) Act, Cuttack charge sheet has been filed for commission of offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PA) Act.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

The appellants had moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Presiding Officer Special Court, under SC/ST (POA) Act, Cuttack which was rejected on 17.06.2021.

¶21

The allegation against the appellants is that the victim was working as a labourer in a cashew factory where the appellant no.1 was working as manager and appellant no.2 was working as supervisor. Along with one Baguli they have humiliated her and scolded her on a number of occasions as her work was slow and it is alleged that they were not paying her wages for which she was not able to return to her village. Some of the co-workers suspected that she has been killed by the accused persons and hence the case was registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

¶22

But after investigation the police has submitted charge sheet against the appellants for commission of offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶23

Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are in custody since 09.03.2021. He further submits that there is no material to make out a case under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for which the offence has been dropped from the charge sheet. He further submits that there is no material to make out even a case under Section 306 of the I.P.C. as the allegation against the appellants is that they were scolding the deceased and not paying her as she was not working properly.

¶24

Mr. Sibani Shankar Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate placed the post mortem report which indicates that the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging witnesses have found the body of the deceased hanging from a tree about one kilometre away from the cashew factory.

¶25

Considering the respective submissions, nature of allegations against the appellants, absence of Section 302 of the

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

I.P.C. in the charge sheet and the period of detention of the appellants in judicial custody, I am inclined to allow the appeal and release the appellants on bail.

¶29

Let the appellants- Raghu @ Bhabani Shankar Prusty and Mantu @ Sarbeswar Sahoo be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the conditions that the appellants will not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not threaten or try to influence prosecution witnesses while on bail.

¶30

The CRLA is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶32

Sukanta

¶33

application.
.........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Raghu@Bhabani Shankar Prusty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu@Bhabani Shankar Prusty 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

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Odisha

Mitrabhanu Guru Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Agarwal @ Agarwalla Vs State of Odisha

Dibyasingh Nayak Vs State

Sanatan Panda Vs State of Orissa

Kananabala Satapathy Vs State of Odisha