Disposed¶20

Annda @ Trilochan Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Aug 2024BLAPL/2031/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC BLAPL 2031/2024, Annda @ Trilochan Naik v. State of Odisha, decided 09.08.2024 by Justice S.S. Mishra: bail refused at this stage in Section 307 IPC case (Keonjhar Town P.S. 413/2023, G.R. 1270/2023) after trial-Court rejection (BA No.344 of 2023, 05.01.2024); Section 164 victim statement considered; renewal allowed after victim's examination; revival permissible if eye-witness testimony not recorded within six months absent fault of accused; application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Bail declined at this stage; liberty to renew the bail plea before the trial Court after the victim is examined, with a right to revive the application if eye-witness testimony is not recorded within six months for causes not attributable to the accused; any revived application to be considered by the trial Court on its own merit. ¶20

Annda @ Trilochan Naik Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose bail plea was earlier rejected by the trial Court, should be admitted on bail at this stage. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The petitioner is not admitted on bail at the present stage, having regard inter alia to the Section 164 statement of the victim; however, liberty is granted to renew the bail plea after the victim has been examined in the instant case.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court is expected to examine eye witnesses preferentially over formal witnesses; if the eye witnesses' testimony is not recorded within six months for causes not attributable to the accused, the petitioner may revive the bail application before the trial Court, which shall consider it on its own merit on the basis of the available records.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra), 09.08.2024 — BLAPL No.2031 of 2024, Annda @ Trilochan Naik v. State of Odisha. Accused in Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.413 of 2023 / G.R. Case No.1270 of 2023 (Section 307 IPC) before the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar, whose bail plea was earlier rejected on 05.01.2024 in Bail Application No.344 of 2023 by the trial Court. Perusing the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, this Court declined bail at the present stage but granted liberty to renew the plea once the victim is examined. It further directed preferential examination of eye witnesses over formal witnesses, and permitted revival of the application if such testimony is not recorded within six months for causes not attributable to the accused, the revived application to be judged by the trial Court on its own merit. BLAPL disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.2031 of 2024 Annda @ Trilochan Naik …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Debasis Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

…. Opp. Party Mr. B.K.Ragada AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

02.

ORDER

09.08.2024

1 . The petitioner is an accused in connection with Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.413 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1270 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar.

¶14

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, submits that, except the present bail application, no other bail application of the petitioner is pending in any other Court relating to the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶15

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Bail Application No.344 of 2023, whereby the bail plea of the petitioner has been

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

rejected by the trial Court.

¶18

4. I have perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his bail plea after the victim has been examined in the instant case.

¶19

5. It is expected that the trial Court does well to see that the eye witnesses are examined preferentially over the formal witnesses. If the testimony of the eye witnesses are not recorded within six months for causes not attributable to the accused person, the petitioner can revive the bail application. The bail application is to be moved before the trial Court after expiry of the period as indicated above and the same shall be considered by the trial Court on its own merit on the basis of the available records.

¶20

6. With the aforementioned liberty, the BLAPL is disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Subhasis

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 11-Aug-2024 08:48:16

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Annda @ Trilochan Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annda @ Trilochan Naik 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

Sudarshan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Banshidhar Jena @ Katibabu Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kindo Vs State of Odisha(Eow)

Vanthala Koteswar Rao Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Dhobuni Padhiari Vs State of Odisha