Allowed¶25

Pakili Pradhan v. State of Odisha

BAIL – GRANTED – Sections 302/34 IPC – Parity with co-accused

Orissa HC7 Mar 2024BLAPL/681/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; BLAPL No. 681 of 2024; Justice V. Narasingh; bail application allowed; Pakili Pradhan; Sections 302/34 IPC; G.R. Case No.394(B) of 2022; Naikanidihi P.S. Case No.111 of 2022; J.M.F.C. Basudevpur; Sessions Judge Bhadrak bail rejection 19.01.2024; charge sheet 25.08.2022 absconder; custody 19.01.2024; parity with released co-accused (Jagabandhu Barik BLAPL No.2952 of 2023; Suryamani Pradhan and Bijaya Pradhan BLAPL No.11545 of 2022); lady accused with 4-month-old child in custody; first proviso Section 437(1) Cr.P.C.; eyewitness accounts; error of record re Bhagirathi Barik and Kartika Pradhan (BLAPL No.12110 of 2022).

What did the court decide?

Release of the Petitioner on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin; the BLAPL stands disposed of. ¶25

Pakili Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the Petitioner on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin; the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, an accused in G.R. Case No.394(B) of 2022 arising out of Naikanidihi P.S. Case No.111 of 2022 (Sections 302/34 IPC), should be released on bail despite eyewitness accounts implicating her, given parity with released co-accused and that she is a lady with a child aged about 4 months in her custody.

¶24

Court's answer

Taking into account the role ascribed to the Petitioner, that she is a lady with a child, and the first proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., the Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin.

¶25

Key takeaways

The observation of the learned Court in seisin that the co-accused persons Jagabandhu Barik, Suryamani Pradhan, Bijaya Pradhan and Bhagirathi Barik have all been released on bail by this Court is an error of record.obiter¶29
While granting the bail application of Suryamani Pradhan and Bijaya Pradhan in BLAPL No.11545 of 2022, this Court had rejected the bail application of Bhagirathi Barik and Kartika Pradhan by order of the even date in BLAPL No.12110 of 2022.obiter¶29
The learned Court in seisin is advised to be more careful in future.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL - GRANTED - Sections 302/34 IPC - Parity with co-accused - Lady accused with infant child - First proviso to S.437(1) Cr.P.C.: Petitioner Pakili Pradhan, accused in G.R. Case No.394(B) of 2022 (J.M.F.C., Basudevpur) arising out of Naikanidihi P.S. Case No.111 of 2022 for alleged offence under Sections 302/34 IPC, sought bail after the Sessions Judge, Bhadrak rejected her S.439 Cr.P.C. application on 19.01.2024; charge sheet had been filed on 25.08.2022 citing her as an absconder, and she was taken into custody on 19.01.2024. Co-accused Jagabandhu Barik (BLAPL No.2952 of 2023, order dt. 20.04.2023) and Suryamani Pradhan and Bijaya Pradhan (BLAPL No.11545 of 2022, order dt. 01.08.2023) had been released on bail by this Court. State and Informant opposed bail, citing eyewitness accounts implicating the Petitioner and arguing against parity. Granting bail, the Court took into account the role ascribed to the Petitioner, that she is a lady with a child aged about 4 months in her custody, and the first proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., directing her release on terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin. The Court also corrected the trial court's erroneous observation that Bhagirathi Barik had been released on bail: he and Kartika Pradhan had in fact been refused bail in BLAPL No.12110 of 2022 by order of even date, and the Court in seisin was advised to be more careful in future.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 681 of 2024

¶3

Pakili Pradhan

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC Mr. P. Panda, Adv.(Informant)

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

Order No.

21.03.2024

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

¶16

The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.394(B) of 2022 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Basudevpur, arising out of Naikanidihi P.S. Case No.111 of 2022 for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, by order dated 19.01.2024 in the aforementioned case, the present bail application has been filed.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel that charge sheet has been filed on 25.08.2022 citing the Petitioner as an absconder and she has been taken into custody on 19.01.2024.

¶21

It submitted by the learned counsel that the co-accused one Jagabandhu Barik has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 20.04.2023 in BLAPL No.2952 of 2023 and two other coaccused persons namely, Suryamani Pradhan and Bijaya Pradhan were released on bail by this Court by order dated 01.08.2023 in BLAPL No.11545 of 2022.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is on a better footing than the co-accused who has since been released on bail and it is his further submission that the Petitioner is a lady and has a child aged about 4 months who is in custody with her.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State as well as Informant oppose the prayer for bail.

¶24

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned counsel for the State that there are eyewitnesses account implicating the Petitioner. Hence, merely because the co-accused persons have been released on bail, on the ground of parity, the Petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

¶25

Taking into account the role ascribed to the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is a lady and has a child and keeping in view the first proviso to Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C., this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin.

¶26

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶27

It is apt to note here that the observation of the learned Court in seisin that the co-accused persons namely, Jagabandhu

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

Barik, Suryamani Pradhan, Bijaya Pradhan & Bhagirathi Barik have been released on bail as per the order passed by this Court is an error of record, inasmuch as noted above, while granting the bail application of the accused Suryamani Pradhan and Bijaya Pradhan in BLAPL No.11545 of 2022, this Court had rejected the bail application of Bhagirathi Barik and Kartika Pradhan by order of the even date in BLAPL No.12110 of 2022.

¶30

Learned Court in seisin is advised to be more careful in future.

¶31

Registry is requested to communicate this order to the learned Court in seisin.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules.

¶33

Santoshi

¶34

(V. NARASINGH)
Judge

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Mar-2024 19:14:29

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Pakili Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakili Pradhan 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

Santosh Dighal Vs State of Odisha

Rabi Khilla @ Rabi Khila Vs State of Odisha

Sudu Khilla Vs State of Odisha

Makuru Purty Vs State of Odisha

Sk. Anwar Vs State of Odisha

Ramu Jena Vs State of Odisha