Manas Puthal@Behendi@Muna Vs State of Odisha

The petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2024 in connection with the Balasore Sadar P.S. Case No.354 of 2021corresponding to Special Case No.16 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (SC & ST), Balasore for the alleged commission of offence under Sections302/34/216/201/120(B) and Section-3(2)(V) of SC & ST (P.A) Act of IPC and read with Section-25/27 of Arms Act.

¶16

The prosecution case is that some persons being arm with gun and telenga katuri etc., assaulted the son of the informant causing bleeding injuries and ultimately resulting in his death. The petitioner’s name is not in the F.I.R. but he has been implicated on the basis of statement of witnesses some of whom are also said to be eye witnesses.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of one Dibyadarshan Sethi, who according to the prosecution is an eye witness but he has not whispered the name of the petitioner at all. It is further submitted that persons named in the FIR as also by the eye witnesses have been directed to be released on bail as per orders passed by this Court. Particular reference is made to the bail orders of co-accused Madan Patra, Jiten Murmu and Ram@Rambabu Dora.

¶19

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner’s involvement is evident from the statement of the witnesses taken together and further he has some criminal antecedents.

¶20

Mr. M. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the informant has also opposed the prayer for bail by referring to the statement of Jayanta Das, who also is said to be an eye witness. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the statements of all the witnesses referred to by the parties, this Court finds that there is no specific allegation of any overt act being committed by the petitioner at the relevant time. There is some evidence to suggest that he was present at the spot but that apart, there is nothing to show that he was actively involved in assaulting the deceased. Further, the co-accused persons against whom directed allegations have been leveled have, in the meantime, been released on the bail. This court, therefore, finds no reason to treat the petitioner differently.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court in seisin over the matter may deem fit and proper to impose. including the following conditions:-

¶23

i. He shall appear before the IIC of Balasore Sadar P.S. on

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

every Sunday at 10.00AM till conclusion of trial and such facts shall be certified by the IIC to the concerned Court once in a month.

¶26

ii. He shall appear before the Court below on each date of posting of the case and no representation through lawyer shall be allowed under any circumstances.

¶27

The CRLA is disposed of.

¶28

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶29

Puspanjali

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck. Date: 05-Feb-2025 19:12:43

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Manas Puthal@Behendi@Muna v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Puthal@Behendi@Muna 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

Swapna Rani Gouda Vs Collector, Ganjam

Sulata Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Parameswar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Jammana Dhanalaxmi Vs State of Odisha

Sipun Kumar Kabi Vs State of Odisha

Pusparanjan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa