Dismissed¶30

Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Apr 2025BLAPL/915/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa, BLAPL No. 915 of 2025, decided 25.04.2025 by Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi: bail prayer of Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata, accused under Section 302 IPC in Bentkar (42 Mouza) P.S. Case No.90 of 2023 (S.T. Case No.244 of 2023, 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack), rejected on grounds of gravity of accusation, character of evidence and stringent punishment; 2 of 31 witnesses examined; custody since 15.03.2023; BLAPL dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In considering the bail prayer, the Court found that reasonable grounds for believing the Petitioner not guilty of the offence alleged, or not likely to commit any such offence, were 'not possible to record in this case'. ¶29

Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 915 of 2025

¶2

Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata

¶3

..…... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Maharana, Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

.….... Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Acharya, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

25.04.2025

Order No.

F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
90	25.03.2023	Bentkar (42 Mouza)	S.T. No.244 of 2023 pending in the court of learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack.	U/s- 302 IPC

¶15

Signature Not V erified

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-May-2025 18:22:33

¶17

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶19

¶20

The Petitioner being in custody in Bentkar (42 Mouza) P.S. Case No.90 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. Case No.244 of 2023, pending in the court of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 302 of IPC, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

¶21

The brief fact of the case is that one Sonali Jena, the informant alleged that on 15.03.2025 at about 9.30 A.M. the accused named Sankar Debata called her husband over phone and thereafter the accused took her husband in his motorcycle. On that evening, she was informed by 42 Mouza Police that her husband was found senseless in village Boulakuda and was admitted in SCB Medical, Cuttack. On her visit to SCB Medical, she found that her husband was declared dead by the doctors. She further alleged that the accused Sankar Debata had previously threatened her husband over phone to kill him. Pursuant to the said written information of the informant, the case was registered under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, this case.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶23

Signature Not Verified Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-May-2025 18:22:33

¶25

no way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution in any manner. He further submits that out of 31

¶26

¶27

charge sheeted witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2023. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner is alleged to have been involved in heinous crime of murder. He further submits that the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that prima facie case is well made out against the present Petitioner for commission of the alleged offences. Hence, he vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.

¶29

Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶30

The BLAPL is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Location: OHC Judge Date: 07-May-2025 18:22:33

¶33

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶34

Murmu

Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar @ Shankarshan Debata 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

Chinmaya Tarai @ Chinku Vs State of Odisha

Lingaraj Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Periwal Vs State of Odisha

Aswini Kumar Baral Vs State

Binod Bhaban Club Vs Collector,Dhenkanal

Bhairab Chandra Sahu Vs State of Odisha