Disposed¶24

Lita @ Baidhara Tudu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2024BLAPL/7275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court bail order disposing BLAPL Nos.2645 and 7275 of 2024 (Salay Tudu & others v. State of Odisha); murder case under Sections 302/201/34/120-B IPC (Khunta P.S. Case No.296 of 2023 / C.T. Case No.897 of 2023, S.D.J.M. Udala); contradictory eyewitness statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; direction to trial Court to examine sole eye witness (mother of deceased/wife of petitioner No.1) preferentially before bail is considered; renewal of bail plea thereafter or after two-month fallback; bar on seeking adjournments; decided 10.09.2024 by Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra.

What did the court decide?

The Court agreed with the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State that the petitioners' bail application ought to be considered after examination of the sole eye witness. ¶20

Lita @ Baidhara Tudu Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail applications of the petitioners, accused under Sections 302/201/34/120-B IPC, should be considered only after examination of the sole eye witness, whose statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. give two different versions.

¶19

Court's answer

The Court agreed with the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State that the petitioners' bail application ought to be considered after examination of the sole eye witness.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial Court was directed to ensure that the sole eye witness to the occurrence, who is the wife of petitioner No.1 and the mother of the deceased, is examined.

¶21

Key takeaways

Examination of the sole eye witness is to be given preference over all other witnesses; thereafter the petitioners may renew their bail plea before the learned trial Court.ratio¶23
The petitioners may renew their bail plea after expiry of two months in the event the said eye witness could not be examined for any reasons whatsoever.ratio¶23
It was made clear that no adjournment shall be sought for on behalf of the petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - BLAPL Nos.2645 & 7275 of 2024 by Salay Tudu & others, accused in Khunta P.S. Case No.296 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.897 of 2023 (Sections 302/201/34/120-B IPC) pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Udala - sole eye witness (mother of the deceased, wife of petitioner No.1) gave conflicting versions in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. - State Counsel submitted bail be considered after examination of the said eye witness - Court agreed - trial Court directed to examine the sole eye witness in preference over all other witnesses - petitioners permitted to renew bail plea before the trial Court thereafter, or after expiry of two months if the eye witness could not be examined for any reasons - no adjournment to be sought on behalf of petitioners - both BLAPLs disposed of (High Court of Orissa, Sibo Sankar Mishra J., 10.09.2024).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.2645 of 2024 BLAPL No.7275 of 2024

¶3

Salay Tudu & others

¶4

…. Petitioners Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr. S.K.Mishra, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER

10.09.2024

1 . In both these petitions, the petitioners are accused in connection with Khunta P.S. Case No.296 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.897 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/ 201/ 34/ 120-B of the IPC pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Udala.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶18

3. It is alleged that the petitioner No.1, who is the father of the deceased, had beaten the deceased and the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 along with one Lita @ Baidhara Tudu were holding the hands of the deceased. The mother of the deceased, who is the wife of the petitioner No.1, is the eye witness to the occurrence. She, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. has stated that the petitioner No.1 has assaulted the deceased. At that point of time, the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and Lita @ Baidhara were holding the deceased. However, in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. she had wriggled out of her earlier statement and narrated a different version.

¶19

4. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that, in view of the fact that the sole eye witness to the occurrence has two versions, one recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and subsequently the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., it would be apt that the bail application of the petitioners shall be considered after examination of the said eye witness.

¶20

5. I am in agreement with the learned State Counsel.

¶21

6. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to do well to see that the sole eye witness to the occurrence, who is the wife of the petitioner No.1 and the mother of the deceased shall be examined, giving

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

preference over all the other witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioners may renew their bail plea before the learned trial Court. The petitioners may renew their bail plea after expiry of two months, in the event the said eye witness could not be examined for any reasons whatsoever.

¶24

7. With the aforementioned observation, both the BLAPLs are disposed of.

¶25

8. It is made clear that, no adjournment shall be sought for on behalf of the petitioners.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

Subhasis

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 11-Sep-2024 10:27:23

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Lita @ Baidhara Tudu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lita @ Baidhara Tudu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jiban Mandal Vs State of Odisha

Kishore Behera @ Jaga @ Kishore Chandra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Narasima Nayak@Bhima Vs State of Odisha

Sudhakar Sriharia Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Bholanath Biswas Vs State of Odisha