Dismissed

Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Nov 2023BLAPL/3134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against rejection of bail, the High Court of Orissa declined to grant bail. The court considered prosecution statements, CDR analysis, and co-accused testimony indicating the petitioner's presence and alleged role, finding sufficient grounds to deny bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; opined that non-identification in T.I. parade is not a ground for bail and petitioner can renew prayer later.

Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 3134 of 2023

¶3

Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC Mr. R.N. Panda, Adv (Informant)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

24.11.2023

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State.

¶16

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.1404 of 2022 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C.-IV, Cuttack arising out of Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.334 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 395 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

¶17

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack by order dated 06.03.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2022 and as charge sheet has already been filed on 17.02.2023 and considering the nature of allegations, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted.

¶19

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner with vehemence that the Petitioner is not identified in the

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

T.I. parade and since a co-accused one Ganesh Prasad Soni who has not been identified in T.I. parade like the present Petitioner has been released on bail, he may be released on bail inter alia on the ground of parity and since the Petitioner is the first offender.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State as well as informant oppose the prayer for bail.

¶23

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that it’s a clear case of false implication and since admittedly, the Petitioner was earlier working in the company of the informant and had left the job, he has been falsely roped in the case at hand.

¶24

To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Das has referred to the Case Diary extensively and stated that there is no material to connect the Petitioner with the crime and hence, his further continuance in custody is punitive.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Gaya places the statement of one Bijay Das-C.W.12 and Basant Kumar JenaC.W.13 and also the statement of the co-accused.

¶26

On the basis of the said statement, it was contended by the learned counsel for the State that there is CDR to indicate that the Petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused persons who are in custody and also refers to their statement which accordingly him indicates that they all congregated in the house of the present Petitioner. The same is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that there is no house in the name of the Petitioner nor there is any material to indicate the same, hence, no credence ought to be attached to such statement.

¶27

The statement of a co-accused has to be viewed with circumspection, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. But, it is also true that while considering the bail

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

application, there is no bar for this Court to look into the statement of the co-accused when the factual matrix of the case so warrants.

¶30

In this context, this Court refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 paragraph-19 which is extracted hereunder;

¶31

“19. The next argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that prima facie the prosecution has failed to produce any material to implicate the respondent in the crime of conspiracy. In this regard he submitted that most of the witnesses have already turned hostile. The only other evidence available to the prosecution to connect the respondent with the crime is an alleged confession of the co-accused which according to the learned counsel was inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, he contends that the High Court was justified in granting bail since the prosecution has failed to establish even a prima facie case against the respondent. From the High Court order we do not find this as a ground for granting bail. Be that as it may, we think that this argument is too premature for us to accept. The admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement and the effect of the evidence already adduced by the prosecution and the merit of the evidence that may be adduced hereinafter including that of the witnesses sought to be recalled are all matters to be considered at the stage of the trial.”

¶32

(emphasized)

¶33

So far as non-identification in T.I. Parade is concerned, it has been stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that admittedly the Petitioner was not at the place of occurrence. Hence, it is stated that non-identification in T.I. parade cannot be a ground to state that the Petitioner is similarly placed with the co-accused.

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

13.A. It is apposite to note on the basis of recitals in the Case Diary that the allegation of the prosecution is not solely based on co-accused statement qua the role alleged to the Petitioner, who is stated to be the mastermind.

¶36

Considering the statement of the independent witness C.Ws.12 and 13 amongst others, the co-accused, the CDR analysis which has been referred to herein above and the contemporaneous presence of the Petitioner with the alleged vehicle which was stated to be used in the commission of the crime and that the Petitioner was an earlier employee and had access to the house and a recce was done through his help, as stated by the co-accused, which according to the considered opinion of this Court can be taken into account in the factual matrix of the case at hand, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage.

¶37

14.A. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are for the purpose of consideration of the bail application only. And, the complicity of the Petitioner has to be adjudicated on the basis of the materials on record independently in the impending trial.

¶38

Leave is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin at a later stage.

¶39

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH)

Judge

Santoshi

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 29-Nov-2023 19:52:10

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitta Ranjan Mohapatra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trilochan Ray Chetty@Trilochan Raicheti Vs State of Odisha

Sanjib Mugri Vs State of Odisha

Jyosnarani Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Narasingha Budek Vs State of Odisha

Samim Khan Vs State of Odisha

Sushanta Panda Vs State of Odisha