Gopabandhu Behera @ Jiten Vs State of Odisha

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through Virtual High Court at Sambalpur and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

¶14

This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Ainthapali P.S. Case No.140 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.332/42 of 2024 pending in the file of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur vide order dated 01.10.2024.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.04.2024 and he has been charge sheeted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the occurrence in question took place in the intervening night of 25/26.04.2024 and there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the main allegation against the petitioner is that one iron rod was seized basing on his statement recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that there were some outstanding dues of the petitioner against the deceased and the deceased did not pay that amount for which there was a quarrel between them and that is why the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the dead body of the deceased was lying in a cabin which was taken on rent by him from one Ganesh Moharana and the petitioner was his servant and he was staying in that cabin and after examining the iron rod seized at the instance of the petitioner, the doctor opined that the injury sustained by the deceased is possible by such weapon.

¶19

Considering the submissions made by the

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence and the nature of circumstantial evidence appearing on record and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions as the learned Court below may deem just and proper including the conditions that the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities and shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date to which the case would be posted for trial.

¶23

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶25

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified Pravakar

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 30-Nov-2024 18:23:04

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Gopabandhu Behera @ Jiten v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopabandhu Behera @ Jiten v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhundu@Mustafa Ahammad Vs State of Orissa

Bapuni @ Sandeep Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Chandan Pradhan @ Pakan Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Tandi Vs State of Odisha

Sibarama Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Abhisek Das Vs State of Odisha