Mahabir Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2024)

Mahabir Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Petitioner (bail application not entertained); however, the learned Court in seisin is requested to conclude the trial at an early date preferably within six months, and the learned counsel for the State is to impart necessary instructions for production of witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, in custody since 02.05.2019 and facing a pending trial, should be released on bail primarily on account of procrastination of trial, relying on the Apex Court's decision in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement.

Court's answer

On perusal of the evidence on record of the injured witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 & 9, the accusation against the Petitioner stands prima facie well established.

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the prima facie well-established accusation, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage, since in the factual matrix of the case at hand the decision relied upon (Manish Sisodia) has no application.

Key takeaways

The observations made are only for the purpose of consideration of bail and ought not to be understood as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner, which is to be adjudicated independently in the impending trial.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application (BLAPL No. 5344 of 2024), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice V. Narasingh), order dated 16.08.2024: Bail refused to Mahabir Sahu, an accused under Sections 341/323/307/302 IPC in Bijepur P.S. Case No.79 of 2019 (C.T. Case No.12 of 2020 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Padampur), whose earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C. application had been rejected by order dated 30.04.2024 and whose first bail application (BLAPL No.7496 of 2019) had been dismissed on 12.04.2022. In custody since 02.05.2019, the Petitioner sought bail primarily on account of procrastination of trial, relying on Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920). Perusing the evidence of injured witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 & 9, the Court found the accusation prima facie well established, held the relied-upon Apex Court decision to have no application in the factual matrix of this case, and declined to entertain the application at this stage. Observations were expressly confined to bail consideration and not indicative of any view on complicity. The trial Court was requested to conclude the trial preferably within six months, with the State counsel arranging witness production; 13 witnesses had already been examined.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No. 5344 of 2024

Mahabir Sahu

Petitioner

Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party

Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER 16.08.2024

Order No.

03. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.12 of 2020 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Padampur, arising out of Bijepur P.S. Case No.79 of 2019 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 341/323/307/302 of IPC.

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. S.J., Padampur by order dated 30.04.2024 in

Page 1 of 3

the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

This is the second journey of Petitioner to this Court. Earlier the bail application of the Petitioner was dismissed by order dated 12.04.2022 in BLAPL No.7496 of 2019.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2019 and seeks release primarily on account of procrastination of trial and in this context he relies on the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 .

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

This Court had called for the depositions of the witnesses examined.

On perusal of the evidence on record of the injured witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 & 9, prima facie the accusation against the Petitioner is well established. 10. Taking note of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application of the Petitioner at this stage since in the factual matrix of the case at hand the decision referred to has no application.

Page 2 of 3

It is needless to state here that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of bail and ought not to be understood as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner and the same has to be adjudicated independently in the impending trial.

Since the Petitioner is stated to be in custody from 02.05.2019 and 13 witnesses have already been examined in the meanwhile, learned Court in seisin is requested to conclude the trial at an early date preferably within a period of six months hence.

Learned counsel for the State shall impart necessary instruction for witnesses to be produced so that the trial can be concluded within the aforementioned period. 14. Registry is requested to communicate this order.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Ayesha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Aug-2024 20:28:55

Page 3 of 3