Bahudi @ Dillip Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.648 of 2024

Bahudi @ Dillip Kumar ..... Petitioner Behera

Represented By Adv. - Niranjan Panda,bisworanjan Swain -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.P.C.Das, ASC BLAPL No.821 of 2024 Goutam Rout ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Niranjan Panda,bisworanjan Swain -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.P.C.Das, ASC BLAPL No.927 of 2024 Tilu @ Srikanta Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Niranjan Panda,bisworanjan Swain -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.P.C.Das, ASC

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

08.08.2024

Page 1 of 4 .

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶11

All these bail applications were taken up for hearing.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the case Diary as well as the statements of the witnesses and F.I.R.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset submitted that one of the co-accused Manas Behera has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in BLAPL No.12688 of 20223 vide order dated 02.09.2023. He further contended that the present Petitioners stand on a similar footing with the abovenamed Manas Behera. Therefore, they should be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the Petitioners neither they have been named in the F.I.R. nor their names have been uttered by any of the witnesses. He also contended that considering the period of custodial detentions, the Petitioners be released on bail on any terms and conditions.

¶14

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand objected to the release of the Petitioners on bail on the ground that Manas Behera stands in a different footing. In respect of Manas Behera, it is submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that he has neither been named in the F.I.R. nor he was present at the spot

¶15

Page 2 of 4 .

¶16

of occurrence. Therefore this Court has been pleased to enlarge him on bail. So far other Petitioners are concerned, learned counsel for the State submitted that accused Gouram Rout, Bahudi @ Dilip Kumar Behera have been named in the F.I.R. However the witnesses examined in this case have specifically stated about these two accused persons. So far Tilu @ Srikanta Behera is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State although he has not been named in the F.I.R. however the witnesses who have seen the occurrence have named Tilu alias Srikanta Behera. On perusal of the case diary as well as the statements of witnesses this Court also observes that accused Bahudi @ Dilip Kumar Behera and Goutam Rout have been specifically named. In such view of the matter, learned the Additional Standing Counsel submits that the prayer for bail of the abovenamed two petitioners deserves no consideration and accordingly their bail applications stand rejected.

¶17

So far Tilu alias Srikanta Behera is concerned, it is stated that the witnesses namely Rajib and Srikanta have stated about his involvement in the present crime and he was present in the vehicle which was seized from the spot. Taking into consideration the fact that initially he was named in the F.I.R. and subsequently named by the above named witnesses, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner Tilu @ Srikants Behera to move an application after examination of the above named two witnesses.

¶18

Page 3 of 4 .

¶19