Ratnakar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant besides Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State.

¶17

Instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed for release of the petitioners on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.688 of 2024 pending disposal in the Court of learned JMFC, Aul, Kendrapara, corresponding to Rajkanika PS Case No.288 of 2024 on the grounds stated therein.

¶18

Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and other accused persons are alleged of having committed the mischief, as a result of which, sister of the informant died. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against petitioner No.1 though admittedly petitioner No.2 is said to be one of the assailants along with other two. If the statement of the informant, namely, Ramesh Chadra Nayak recorded under

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other statements as at Annexure-3 series are gone through, it is further submitted that the weapon of offence has been discovered at the instance of the principal co-accused, namely, Sunakar Nayak and the same is revealed from the statement of him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. If, at all the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C are duly considered, it is stated that the assault is at the behest of the named accused persons only by means of wooden stick, crowbar etc. Considering the fact that a civil dispute is pending between both the families of the deceased and principal accused, it is submitted by Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel that the alleged occurrence may be said to have taken place for the same but regard being had to the fact that the investigation is concluded with the chargesheet filed in the month of October, 2024, the petitioners should be released on bail with any terms and conditions as would be fixed by the Court.

¶21

A strong objection is received from Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant by claiming that the petitioners and other accused persons participated in the alleged incident, assaulted the deceased, who succumbed to the injury, when the ambulance in which, she was to be shifted was detained by all of them. It is claimed that the accused persons are also threatening the family of the informant after the incident, for which, a complaint has been lodged and while claiming so, a copy of the complaint registration receipt issued by Rajkanika P.S. dated 7^th December, 2024 is produced in Court and the same is perused.

¶22

Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State submits that there is allegation against the petitioners, who have been alleged of being members of the group of men, who assaulted the victim. In view of the evidence revealed, which is supported by witnesses present at

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

the place of occurrence, as according to Mr. Pradhan, learned ASC for the State, the petitioners having committed the alleged overt acts should not be allowed to go on bail especially when there is a threat perception vis-a-vis the family of the informant.

¶25

Gone through the FIR as at Annexure-1 and rejection order i.e. Annexure-2.

¶26

Perused the statements of the witnesses including the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as at Annexure-3 series. As per the P.M. report in respect of the deceased, the cause of death is on account of Craniocerebral injuries and complications as a result. Admittedly, on account of injuries received, the victim succumbed to the same. As per the said report, the injuries to be ante mortem in nature and could have been caused due to hard, blunt force trauma. Considering the statements of the witnesses as at Annexure-3 series, no doubt, a prima facie case has been made out. In the meantime, the investigation is concluded with the chargesheet being filed against the petitioners and two others for an offence under Section 302 IPC. On a reading of the statements of the witnesses as at Annexure-3 series, it is made to suggest that besides the principal accused, namely, Sunakar Nayak, two others named specifically assaulted the deceased including petitioner No.2. Some witnesses, as further made to reveal, disclosed the assault to have been carried out by means of wooden stick, crowbar etc. In any case, the deceased received injuries on her head and died thereafter. It is no doubt alleged that the victim could not be immediately shifted to the hospital as the ambulance, which was to shift her to the hospital, was detained at the spot by the accused persons. It is also admitted that the family of the informant lodged a complaint to the local P.S. alleging that they have been threatened by the

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

accused persons without any specific names being mentioned therein. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant submits that all the accused persons are threatening the informant and other family members of the deceased

¶29

But considering the evidence in its entirety, the Court reaches at a prima facie view that the assault was carried out at the behest of three of the accused persons and particularly, by those, whose names are mentioned and clearly disclosed by the witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In fact, petitioner No.2 is one among the assailants, who allegedly assaulted the victim. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, it does not reveal from the record that he in any way had any specific overt act committed and was one of the assailants so to say. No doubt there has been allegation of political rivalry but then, as it appears, on account of civil dispute between the families of the informant and the principal accused, namely, Sunakar Nayak, the alleged incident has taken place. Either, on account of commotion or disturbance or protest of the accused persons, the deceased could not be shifted to hospital as the ambulance was alleged to have been detained. So, therefore, with the discussions as aforesaid and the circumstances leading to the alleged incident, the Court is inclined to release petitioner No.1 and not the other accused, who is an assailant and said to have participated in the alleged assault with two others including the principal accused.

¶30

Hence, it is ordered.

¶31

In the result, the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. Consequently, petitioner No.1 is directed to be released on bail in connection with G.R. Case No.688 of 2024 arising out of

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

Rajkanika P.S. Case No. 288 dated 27^th June, 2024 subject to him furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C., Aul, Kendrapara, who shall impose such other suitable conditions as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case besides following, such as, he shall not cause any harm to the informant or any of the family members of the deceased and be a part of any further mischief, in any manner, whatsoever, while on bail and to report the local P.S. once in a fortnight and to continue to do so till the further investigation is concluded. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be responsible for any such incident in future causing harm to the family of the deceased and in case, the same is reported or any of the conditions imposed by the Court as above and further to be fixed by the court below, it shall entail cancellation of his bail forthwith. As a necessary corollary, for the reason stated herein before, the request for bail vis-à-vis petitioner No.2 stands rejected.

¶34