Sukash Majhi Vs State of Odisha

These two criminal appeals in the nature of bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) are directed against the impugned orders dated 23.12.2024/ 03.03.2025 passed in ST Case No.162 of 2022/Special GR Case No.162 of 2022 by which the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Sundargarh, has refused to grant bail to the appellants in connection with Bargaon PS Case No.135 of 2022, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.341/294/323/302/506/34 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Ghanashyam

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

Majhi by assaulting him indiscriminately, along with coaccused persons.

¶14

Heard, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Kaustuva Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. M. Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel who while entering appearance for the informant in the Court today by filing two Vakalatnamas produces two affidavits of the witness-Muna Majhi, which are taken on record. 3.1. It is, however, specifically submitted by Mr. Rao that the family members of the informant has been ostracized and they apprehends danger at the end of the appellants, if they are released on bail. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the appellants for committing murder of the deceased Ghanashyam Majhi by indiscriminately assaulting him along with co-accused persons, but the FIR averments reveals that the deceased Ghanashyam Majhi had allegedly killed the father of the appellant No.1-Prakash Majhi @ Prakash Kumar Majhi in CRLA No.197 of 2025. Be that as it may, one of the eye witness to the occurrence-cum-informant namely Muna Majhi has already been examined, but Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the informant submits that another eye witness namely Hemabati Majhi is yet to be examined. No doubt, there is allegation against the appellants for committing murder, but the so called eye witness has testified about

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

the appellants assaulting the deceased by giving kick and fist blows and, subsequently, battering a stone to the chest of the deceased. However, the cause of death of the deceased in the PM report is opined to be on account of traumatic asphyxia and its complication. Right now, the appellants are in custody since 24.07.2022 and in the meantime, more than three and half years have elapsed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the circumstance under which the deceased was done to death and keeping in view the other circumstances on record in entirety, this Court without expressing any opinion on merit considers it proper to admit each of the appellants to bail, but subject to certain conditions.

¶17

Hence, these two CRLAs stand allowed and the impugned orders are, hereby, quashed/set aside. Consequently, the appellants namely Prakash Majhi @ Prakash Kumar Majhi, Sanikirtan Karta @ Denu @ Dendu, Bhakta Sa @ Bhatlu Sa @ Bhaktabandhu, Mishra Rout @ Luhura @ Kamara and Sesadev @ Sheshadeb Sahu @ Second Teli (In CRLA No.197 of 2025) and Sukash Majhi (In CRLA No.348 of 2025) are directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin over the matter with following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the appellants shall not contact the informant or his family members in any manner at any place,

¶19

(ii) the appellants shall not threaten, induce, influence or coerce any of the witnesses

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

including the family members of the informant acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts before the Court,

¶22

(iii) the appellants shall not persuade the villagers or other persons to ostracize the informant and his family members or take out any procession against the informant and his family members,

¶23

(iv) the appellants shall report attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for three(03) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

¶24

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the appellant unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated. The learned Sessions Judge, who is Special Judge in the impugned orders has passed orders in two separate case number vide ST Case No.162 of 2022 & Special GR Case No.162 of 2022, but there should be uniform number, unless the accused concerned is/are accused in original and split up case. This Court, therefore, advises the learned Special Judge to see and verify the same. Further, the case under atrocity act is to be dealt by Special Judge, but one of the impugned order is passed in the capacity of Sessions Judge which is erroneous.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. A soft copy of the order be transmitted to the concerned Court and Jail for information.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

(G. Satapathy)

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Subhasmita Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Feb-2026 15:02:14

¶29

Judge

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Sukash Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukash Majhi 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

Abdul Saleem Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Bhatra Vs State of Odisha

Binod Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Malik Vs State of Odisha

Pitambara Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sahid Khan Vs State of Odisha