In an appeal under Section 14 of the SCST(POA) Act, the High Court rejected the bail plea of an appellant charged with murder, noting the recovery of the weapon and intent, but granted liberty to renew the prayer after eye witness examination.
Liberty granted to renew the prayer for bail after examination of the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
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.139 of 2023
Aditya Kumar Rout @ …. Appellant Gudu
Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
…. Respondents
2. Madhusudan Majhi
Mr.S.S. Mohapatra
Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr. J. Patnaik, Advocate for the
informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 03.07.2023
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Order No.
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
This is an appeal under section 14 of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act in connection with Spl. (S.C. & S.T.) Case No.188 of 2022 arising out of Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No.343 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (S.C. & S.T.), Bhadrak for offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(v) of the
// 2 //
S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.
The appellant moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cumSpecial Judge (SC & ST), Bhadrak, which was rejected on 20.01.2023.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 05.07.2022 and he has been charge sheeted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence in question took place on 04.07.2022 and it appears from the prosecution case that during quarrel, on the spur of the moment, the appellant stated to have assaulted the deceased Bidyadhar Majhi @ Biju by means of a bamboo stick and therefore, the bail application of the appellant may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and placed the statement of eye witness Tukuna @ Utkal Rout, who stated how the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of a bamboo stick on his head, chest and leg on account of previous grudge and the deceased was shifted to hospital where he was declared dead. Learned counsel also placed the post mortem report which indicates that the cause of death was on account of carniocerebral injury.
Learned counsel for the informant also opposed
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
the prayer for bail and submitted that there was previous hostility between the parties and the manner in which the assault has been made by the appellant on the deceased repeatedly by means of a bamboo stick shows the intention of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased and the bamboo stick was also recovered at the instance of the appellant.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the appellant, the manner in which the occurrence took place and the post mortem report finding, I am not inclining to release the appellant on bail. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
It is stated that since the trial has not commenced, the learned trial Court shall do well to expedite the framing of the charge and thereafter take steps for examination of the eye witnesses at the first instance.
The CRLA is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERASipun Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 04-Jul-2023 18:48:20
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an appellant in a murder charge arising under Section 302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order should be modified to allow examination of witnesses before reopening bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
null
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Aditya Kumar Rout @ Gudu
State of Odisha
Madhusudan Majhi
S.K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
