Dismissed

Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Nov 2023BLAPL/815/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of two bail applications jointly. It rejected the petitions challenging lower rejections under Section 439 Cr.P.C., finding the Petitioners had roles in a murder conspiracy supported by corroborated evidence and antecedents.

What did the court decide?

BLAPLs stand rejected; bail not granted to either petitioner.

Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 815 of 2023

¶3

Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha Opposite Party

¶7

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC Mr. J. Pal, Adv.(Informant)

¶8

BLAPL No. 1437 of 2023

¶9

Asis Mohapatra @ Baba …. Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
….
State of Odisha Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC
Mr. J. Pal, Adv.(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
29.11.2023

¶10

Order No.

¶11

14.

¶12

Since both the BLAPLs relate to the same P.S. Case (Puri Town P.S. Case No.90 of 2022) (in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri), they are heard together on the consent of the Parties and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶13

Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Palit and learned counsel Mr. Pradhan for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Maharaj and learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Pal.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

The Petitioners are accused in connection with G.R. Case No.580 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Puri, arising out of Puri Town P.S. Case No.90 of 2022, for alleged commission of offences under Section 302/120-B/34 of IPC read with Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

¶16

Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, by order dated 14.12.2022 & by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri by order dated 17.10.2022 in the aforementioned cases, the present BLAPLs have been filed.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Pradhan that so far as the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) in BLAPL No.815 of 2023 is concerned, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the only allegation is one under Section 120-B of IPC.

¶18

It is stated by the learned counsel that to fortify such allegation, there are no independent witnesses and the entire case of prosecution to drive home the allegation of conspiracy is based on the statement of the co-accused.

¶19

It is submitted that some of the co-accused persons have also not named the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) as part of the conspiracy, hence his further continuance in custody is unwarranted and it is also stated on affidavit which was filed at the behest of the Petitioner that though the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) has several criminal antecedents, they are year old and that ought not to deter this Court from considering of bail application on merits and in this context learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648 .

¶22

It is the further submission of the learned counsel, Mr. Pradhan that this court on consideration of materials have released the accused persons namely, Jagan Khatei and Tulia @ Sandip Jena by order dated 28.03.2023 in BLAPL Nos.8971 & 11932 of 2022 respectively and it is further submitted that the Petitioner is on a better footing than the co-accused Dolagobinda @ Taluchha Ashis Mohapatra released on bail by this Court by order dated 15.11.2022 in BLAPL No.7695 of 2022. Hence, inter alia, on the ground of parity, the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) seeks release.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Palit appearing for the Petitioner (Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) in BLAPL No.1437 of 2023 submits that though the said accused was present at the site of the incident since, admittedly no overt act is attributed to him and in terms of the statement of the eyewitnesses Pichi Kalia @ Trinath Mohanty-CSW No.9 and Narasingha Panda-CSW No.10, the overt act is attributed to Tutu & Kunmuni the co-accused who are not the Petitioners before this Court, the Petitioner (Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) ought not to be incarcerated any further.

¶24

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Palit submits that since Narasingha Panda-CSW No.10 is related to deceased and is an interested witness, his version is exaggerated and has to be viewed with circumspection.

¶25

Learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Pal submits that in a case of this nature which is based on well hatched conspiracy, the evidence on record has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

the offence and merely because the co-accused have been released on bail, the present Petitioners ought not to claim for release in view of the role ascribed to them.

¶28

Learned counsel for the informant also relies on the judgment of the Apex Cout in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 relating to the approach of the Court in assessing co-accused statement at the stage of consideration of bail.

¶29

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Maharaj while echoing the submissions by the learned counsel for the informant relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra reported in (2018) 10 SCC 516 and also submits that the criminal antecedents of the accused is one of the guiding factor in considering the application for bail.

¶30

Learned counsel for the State further submits that CDR analysis, it has come to the fore that the Petitioner (Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) in BLAPL No.1437 of 2023 was in constant touch with the other co-accused.

¶31

The accused Kunmuni who is allegedly fired at the deceased has also spoken about the conspiracy in which both the Petitioners(Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna & Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) in BLAPL Nos.815 & 1437 of 2023 and were present. 16. It is not disputed that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and admittedly there was two places where the alleged conspiracy alleged to have taken place and the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) in BLAPL No.815 of 2023 is stated to be present at one of these places i.e. Harachandi Temple.

¶32

On perusal of the disclosure statement Kalu @ Satya Narayan Panigrahi who was the Manager working under the

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

principal accused, the presence of Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) in BLAPL No.815 of 2023 is clearly borne out and it also comes to the fore that the present Petitioner agreed to provide the firearm and ammunition.

¶35

It is apt to note here that the amount so fixed for providing the gun was stated to be Rs.70,000/- of which Rs.50,000/- was seized from the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) in BLAPL No.815 of 2023 in presence of witnesses Sritam Behera and Nrusingha Samal. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel that there are no materials to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime save and except the co-accused statement is prima-facie untenable.

¶36

This Court closely perused the statement of the co-accused Kalu @ Satya Narayan Panigrahi who was working as a Manager. 20. On a close scrutiny of such statement the role ascribed to the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) in BLAPL No.815 of 2023 clearly comes to the fore. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 regarding the evidentiary value of a co-accused statement at the time of consideration of bail and keeping in view that the the Petitioner has two criminal antecedents which relate to Arms Act notwithstanding the fact that he is on bail in several cases. This Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner (Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna) in BLAPL No.815 of 2023 at this stage .

¶37

So far as the bail application of the Petitioner (Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) in BLAPL No.1437 of 2023 is concerned, admittedly the Petitioner was present at the place of

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

occurrence along with the two accused to whom the overt act is attributed i.e. Tutu & Kunmuni and the Petitioner along with Hari were present at the spot.

¶40

On a bare perusal of statement of CSW Nos.9 & 10, it can be seen that the Petitioner while decamping from the place of occurrence was shouting that the wish of another co-accused has been fulfilled.

¶41

This Court is refraining from expressing any opinion regarding the admissibility and the evidentiary value of the said statement since that will affect the impending trial.

¶42

On the basis of materials on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner (Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) had no role to play and merely because the overt act is not attributed to him he is liable to be released on bail.

¶43

In view of the analysis as above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner (Asis Mohapatra @ Baba Mohapatra) in BLAPL No.1437 of 2023 at this stage .

¶44

Accordingly, the BLAPLs stand rejected.

¶45

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶46

Ayesha

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Dec-2023 16:54:44

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasmiranjan Patra @ Muna 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

Deepak Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Anita Barik Vs State of Odisha

Sandip Agrawal @ Sandeep Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Ashis Mohapatra@Baba Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Kumar Das@Sagar@Sushanta Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Ankit Khandelwal Vs State of Odisha