Allowed

Tapu @ Jayanta Maharana v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Aug 2024BLAPL/2996/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed the petitioner's bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case of culpable homicide and abetment. The court directed the lower court to release the petitioner on bail for six months subject to reporting periodically and cooperating with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by the lower court on terms including reporting to IIC, cooperation with investigation, and non-tampering with evidence for six months.

Tapu @ Jayanta Maharana Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.2996 of 2024

¶3

…. Tapu @ Jayanta Maharana

¶4

Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. D. Nayak, Senior Advocate along with Mr. B. K. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party(s)

¶9

Mr. J. P. Patra, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

20.08.2024

Order No.

05.

Authorization memo filed in Court today by Mr.

¶16

Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record.

¶17

The petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.192 of 2024 arising out of Khaira P.S. Case No.33 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 306/34 of I.P.C. pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Soro.

¶18

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.

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

The prosecution story in short is that, on 10.02.2024, the informant lodged a written report before the IIC, Khaira Police Station alleging therein that on 10.01.2024 at about 1.00 A.M., one Rashmita Nayak informed her daughter over phone that her son has consumed poison. Thereafter, they immediately went to the spot and shifted her son to the hospital. During treatment, on 13.01.2024 at 11.08 P.M., the doctor declared her son as dead. Due to mental imbalance, she could not report the matter. It is also alleged that she did know that the petitioner, along with others were black-mailing her son about a photograph of a girl and extracted money from his Phone Pe No.9556016697 to mobile No.6370856733 many times. Hence, the F.I.R.

¶21

The incident had happened on 10.01.2024, whereas after one month, on 10.02.2024, the F.I.R. was registered. It appears from the record that the petitioner was working under the deceased and he came to know regarding the relationship of the deceased with a particular individual. The petitioner had been exploiting this position to black mail the deceased. It is also alleged that the deceased had informed this fact to her sister immediately before the date of incident. However, the F.I.R. came to be registered after one

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

month. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.02.2024. The charge-sheet has already been filed.

¶24

The petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore praying for grant of bail. The learned Court below vide its order dated 15.03.2024 rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for enlargement on bail.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Regard being had to the period of custody and the nature of accusation made against the petitioner, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Hence, the petitioner be released on bail by the learned Court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper, subject to the following additional conditions:-

¶28

(i) The petitioner shall report to the I.I.C., Khaira P.S., Balasore physically on the last Sunday of each month for six months without fail.

¶29

(ii) He shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

(iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner

¶32

whatsoever.

¶33

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail consideration

¶34

for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. In the event, any of the bail conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is given liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for recalling the concession of bail. If such application is moved, the trial Court should decide the application on its own merit.

¶35

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶37

Swarna

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Aug-2024 12:40:21

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Tapu @ Jayanta Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapu @ Jayanta Maharana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagadish Misra Vs State

Tapan Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Gopinath Naik Vs State of Odisha

Shanti Satman Vs State of Odisha

Pintu Digal@Gobinda Digal Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Dixit@Bijaya Kumar Dixit Vs State of Odisha