Jitendra Polai Vs State of Odisha

CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
27.02.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
notice on the respondent no.2/informant has been
made sufficient.

¶13

None appears for the respondent no.2/informant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

This is an appeal under section 14(A) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act in connection with Special G.R. Case No.09 of 2021 arising out of Kodala P.S. Case No.79 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Khallikote for offences punishable under sections 143/364/302/149

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.

¶17

The appellant moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Khallikote which was rejected on 12.04.2022.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant Jitendra Polai is in judicial custody since 08.05.2021 and he has been charge-sheeted under sections 143/364/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence in question took place during the intervening night of 15/16.03.2021 and the deceased is one Tutu Nayak. He further submitted that out of eighteen chargesheet witnesses, eleven witnesses have been examined and none of the witnesses examined in the learned trial Court has attributed any overt act against the appellant. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant and at this stage, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant had supplied the deposition copies of eleven witnesses examined so far in the learned trial Court to the learned counsel for the State, who after going through the same submitted that Rajeswari Nayak (P.W.10), who is the

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

widow of the deceased and the informant in the case, has not supported the prosecution case, whereas the other four eyewitnesses, namely Tamal Nayak (P.W.5), Rebati Nayak (P.W.8), Bhabani Nayak (P.W.7) & Basanti Nayak (P.W.11) have supported the prosecution case and implicated the appellant in the assault of the deceased Tutu Nayak. Learned counsel for the State also placed the post-mortem report, which indicates that the deceased had sustained some contusions on different parts of the body including the forehead and the injuries have to be opined in ante mortem in nature and could be possible by hard and blunt object and the cause of the death was on account of spinal shock due to injury to cervical vertebra

¶23

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced so far in the learned trial Court, the period of detention of the appellant in judicial custody and absence of any criminal antecedent, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail.

¶24

Let the appellant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions as the learned Court

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

may deem just and proper with further conditions that he shall not indulge in any criminal activities, shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date to which the case would be posted for trial and shall not try to tamper with the evidence.

¶28

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶29

The CRLA is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶31

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶32

Judge

¶33

M.K.Rout