Sundar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2518 of 2025, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 9288 of 2024 besides Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.

¶25

Page 1 of 4

¶26

Instant bail petitions are filed seeking release of the petitioners on bail in connection with S.C. No. 98 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case NO. 132 of 2022 arising out of Loisinga P.S. Case No. 136 of 2022 pending in the file of the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Jude, Balangir on the grounds stated therein.

¶27

Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for one of the petitioners submits that the witnesses so far examined alleged to be present near the spot at the time of the incident have not deposed in favour of the prosecution. The further submission is that one of the witnesses namely, P.W. 15 deposed about the alleged incident claiming himself to have received injuries on account of the assault by the accused persons. The submission is that save and except the testimony of P.W. 15, the other independent witnesses examined from the side of prosecution have not supported the case. In such view of the matter as further submitted, the petitioners, who are in judicial custody for nearly three years should be allowed to go on bail with any conditions. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the other petitioner submits that there has been seizure of a bamboo and it has been from another accused and no other weapon of offence said to have been used by the accused persons during an in course of the alleged incident was seized. It is submitted that such seizure has been made not from the petitioners. With such submission, release of the petitioners is demanded as nearly fifteen witnesses have already been examined.

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State submits that the names of the petitioners and other accused persons have been revealed in the F.I.R. at Annexure-1. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place during night time at about 10.30 p.m. and according to the evidence of P.W. 15, no one was present nearby except the accused persons. It is submitted that P.W. 15 is a material witness being a relation of the deceased and had been to the spot on a call received by him from one of the accused persons, namely, Sundar Swain, whereafter, the alleged incident took place. It is contended that P.W. 15 received number of injuries as well as the deceased and while stating so, Mr. Swain, learned AGA produced a copy of the medical examination report and also PM report for the Court’s perusal. It is also submitted that the relations of the petitioners are threatening the family members of the deceased and in that connection, P.S. Case No. 423 dated 9^th October, 2024 has been registered under Sections 296, 351(3) and 3(5) BNS. In reply and response to the above, it is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel that the said case has been registered against another accused and not the petitioners.

¶30

Perused the copies of the depositions of the witnesses examined during trial as produced by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for appearing for one of the accused persons. The P.M. report is also perused along with medical examination report of the injured witness, namely, P.W. 15. Both the reports reveal number of injuries to have been sustained by the deceased and P.W. 15. Of course, the seizure is alleged against another accused but the petitioners’ involvement in the alleged incident

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

have been disclosed by P.W. 15. Of course, while considering the request for bail, the Court is not inclined to reach at any such conclusion one way or the other regarding the involvement of the petitioners, which is likely to prejudice them during trial as the same is in progress and might even influence the learned Court below but taking into account the P.M. report as well as other materials and considering the testimony of P.W.15, the Court is not in favour of releasing the petitioners on bail at present even though they have remained in judicial custody for more than three years.

¶33