Nalia @ Bikash Parida Vs State of Odisha

The accused-Appellants by filing the Appeal has assailed an order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur in C.T.(Special) Case No.04 of 2024 arising out of Bari Ramchandra P.S. Case no.20 of 2024, whereby the prayer for grant of bail to the Appellants have been rejected.

¶17

Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submits that the materials collected in course of investigation would indicate that there was no prior planning for the incident which had taken place because of the dispute for cutting of the

¶18

Page 1 of 3.

¶19

trees and removal of the timber. He further submits that as would reveal from the materials on record that the members of the prosecution parity were the aggressors and they having assaulted the Appellants and others, a case has also been registered and in the said incident, this Appellant No.1, Bikash Parida has received grievous injury when the other one has received simple injuries. He submitted that the statements of the witnesses would rather show that from the beginning they are suppressing the role played by the members of the prosecution party and simply stating the role of these Appellants that too in an exaggerated manner. In view of all these above, as in the meantime, the investigation is at its fag end and there remains no scope on the part of the Appellants to flee from justice and tamper the evidence; he urges for grant of bail to the Appellants.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State opposes the move. According to him, with the available materials on record, it is said for a moment that the members of the prosecution party were the aggressors, it can be said that these Appellants have exceeded the limit provided as per law which was not to the extent of causing the death of the deceased. He however, does not dispute the position as regards institution of another case as against the members of the prosecution party for their roles in the said incident and the Appellant No.1 having medically examined, the Doctor had noticed grievous injuries on his person and so also simple injury on the person of Appellant No.2.

¶21

None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.2 despite due service of notice.

¶22

Page 2 of 3.

¶23

Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials on record and further keeping in view the surrounding circumstances as those emanate from the materials on record as also the period of detention of the Appellants in custody; this Court is of the view that further detention of the Appellant till conclusion of the Trial would not serve any useful purpose and as such is not warranted. Accordingly, while being inclined to set aside the impugned order and consider the prayer for grant of bail to the Appellants; it is directed that the they be released on bail in the aforesaid case with such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the Court in seisin of the case with further conditions that they will not terrorize or threaten the prosecution witnesses; and will appear in person before the Court in seisin of the case on each date of posting of the case till conclusion of the trial.

¶24