Allowed

Pitam Rout v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 May 2022BLAPL/9431/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa considered a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case involving Section 302 IPC. Balancing the gravity of the offence with the prosecution's case and witness statements, the court granted bail to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by enforcing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety and conditions to be specified by the trial court.

Pitam Rout Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.9431 of 2021

¶3

Pitam Rout

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. B.K. Behera-1 , Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. M.K. Mohanty, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

20.05.2022

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for bail in connection with Dharambandha P.S. Case No.31 of 2021, corresponding to C.T. Case No.398 of 2021, pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 147/148/307/ 302/149 of I.P.C.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the FIR, Case Diary and statement of witnesses.

¶17

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the son-in-law of the deceased Bhikham Rout lodged a written report on dated 11.07.2021 alleging therein that on 10.06.2021 at about 6.30 P.M. he along with his father-in-law Bhikham Rout the deceased, Raju Yadav and Hema Majhi were returning from Bhainsadadar to Darlipada by his Motor Cycle. On the way at village Pakhan Padar, Umesh Majhi and Nepal Majhi

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

stopped their motor cycle and called the other persons, namely Ankumar Majhi, Bedram Majhi, Pitam Rout, Rajkumar Majhi, Jitendra Majhi and others over telephone, they all arrived at the spot and assaulted Bhikham Rout and Raju Yadav by means of lathi and sticks, as a result Raju Yadav sustained bleeding injuries on his head. On seeing this, due to fear the complainant and Huma Majhi fled away from the spot and returned to village Darlipada. Then they both along with Panbai Rout the wife of the deceased Bhikham Rout and others had been to the spot for searching but they could not found anybody at the spot. Then they proceeded towards village Bhaisadadar and on the way near Pakhanpadar Nala, they found Bhikham Rout with bleeding injuries. Thereafter the complainant and his mother-in-law shifted Bhikham Rout to Dharambandha Medical by an Eco Vehicle from where the injured shifted to Nuapada Medical. On arrival at Nuapada Medical, the M.O. after checking declared Bhikham Rout dead. Therefore, the present FIR has been filed by the complainant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since the date of his arrest, i.e. 16.07.2021. It is further submitted that police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the Petitioner. Relying upon the statement of the injured eye witness, namely, Raju Kumar Rout, who was present all through the incident, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the deceased was assaulted by Panchu, Jitu and Rajkumar. He further submits that the deceased was also assaulted by Umesh Majhi and Nepal Majhi. Thereafter the victim lost his sense. Subsequently, he was shifted to the hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. It appears that the above named persons have assaulted the deceased directly as per the statement of the injured eye witness. It is also submitted that on similar footing with the present petitioner, other co-accused persons have already been

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

released on bail by this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State vehemently objects the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. He submits that a brutal murder has been committed by the accused persons, therefore, no leniency should be shown to the accused persons. He urges for rejection of the bail application of the Petitioner.

¶24

Considering the submissions made as well as the surrounding circumstances and keeping in view the nature of allegation and the statement of witness, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin of the matter subject to the terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the learned trial court.

¶25

With the above direction, the BLAPL is accordingly allowed.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶27

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶28

Jagabandhu

Pitam Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitam Rout 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

Akhila Kumar Roula Vs State of Odisha

Sitaram Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Somya Ranjan Mohapatra @ Pinkulu Vs State of Odisha

Gourav Chhachhan Vs State of Odisha

Bichitra Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Mangal Jaypuria Vs State of Odisha