Basudev Maharana Vs State of Odisha

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 07-May-2025 18:29:28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

BLAPL No.1293 OF 2025 Basudev Maharana …. Petitioner Mr. Sanjit Mishra, Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha Opposite Party Mr. Tapas Kumar Acharya, ASC Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mohanty, Adv. (for Informant)

¶4

CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶5

Order	No.			ORDER
02.				02.05.2025
	F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
	0025	03.04.2024	Penthakata Marine	G.R. Case No.229 of 2024 arising out of Penthakata Marine P.S. Case No.25 of 2024 of the court of Ld. JMFC (Cog-II), Puri which was committed and	Sections 341/326/307/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act

¶6

Page 1 of 4

¶7

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 07-May-2025 18:29:28

¶8

registered
as S.T Case
No.32/514
of 2024, and
now
pending in the court of
the learned
3^rd
Additional
Sessions
Judge,Puri.

¶9

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶11

3. The Petitioner being in custody in connection with G.R. Case No.229 of 2024 arising out of Penthakata Marine P.S. Case No.25 of 2024 of the court of Learned JMFC (Cog-II), Puri which was committed and registered as S.T Case No.32/514 of 2024, and now pending in the court of the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, has filed this application for release on bail.

¶12

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant lodged a written report before the Penthakata Marine P.S alleging therein that on 03.04.2024 at about 11 to 11.10 am while his father (the victim) was going to Court, the present Petitioner along with the other accused persons as per their previous

¶13

Page 2 of 4

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 07-May-2025 18:29:28

¶15

planning came near to him and obstructed his cycle. Thereafter, the present petitioner threw two bombs towards the victim out of which the first one did not hit him but the second one hit his right hand. While he tried to save his head from the bombs, the victim suffered severe injuries on his right hand. Due to explosion of the bomb, his right hand muscle and bones were exposed and caused him severe injury. Based on these allegations, FIR was lodged on 03.04.2024. After receiving such information, the Petitioner was arrested in Penthakata Marine P.S. Case No.229 of 2024 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341/326/307/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and investigation was started in the matter.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged offences in any manner. There is no incriminating material available against the present Petitioner to implicate him in the alleged offences. The Petitioner is languishing in custody since 04.04.2024. Charge-sheet has already been filed in this case. He further submits that out of 28 charge-sheeted witnesses, eight witnesses have already been examined from the side of the prosecution. But none of them has deposed anything against the petitioner in corroboration of the

¶17

Page 3 of 4

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 07-May-2025 18:29:28

¶19

prosecution story. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner submitting that the victim is a senior Member of Bar Association, Puri. He sustained grievance injuries on his part. He further submits that there is every possibility of threatening and tampering with prosecution witnesses, if the Petitioner is released on bail. Moreover, the injured witness has not been examined in this case. In such premises, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve for bail.

¶21

7. Regard being had to the facts and submissions made, gravity of offences and punishment prescribed for the offences, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after examination of the injured witness.

¶22

8. It is also made clear that the injured witness will be examined within a period of one month from today and the said witness shall cooperate with the same failing which the grievance of the Petitioner for grant of bail shall be considered by this Court.

¶23

9. Accordingly, this BLAPL is disposed of.

¶24

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶25

B. Jhankar

¶26

Page 4 of 4

Basudev Maharana v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudev Maharana 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

Subhankar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Chandan @ Chinmaya Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Parbati Paramanik Vs State of Odisha

Arup Ranjan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kurre @ Suddu Kurrei Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Yadav Vs State of Odisha