Bapi @ Sudhir Dehury vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 12789 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              CRLA No.441 of 2020

              Bapi @ Sudhir Dehury                      ....     Appellant/
                                                               Petitioner

                                     Mr.Chitta Ranjan Sahu,
                                     Advocate

                                           -versus-
              State of Odisha                           ....
                                                              Respondent/
                                                              Opp.Party

                                     Mr. D.K. Pani,
                                     Addl. Standing Counsel

                                     CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                       ORDER

Order No. 13.12.2021

I.A. No. 839 of 2020

04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).

This is an application under section 389 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five // 2 //

thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months for the offence under section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Baleswar in S.T. Case No. 16 of 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.10.2015 and as such out of ten years of substantive imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner has already undergone substantive sentence of six years and two months. It is further submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. In paragraph no.22 of the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the fact of homicidal nature of death of the deceased has been established and that apart, the circumstances of leading to recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife was made at the instance of the petitioner. The napkin of the petitioner was seized which was found to be stained with human blood of group A which was proved to be blood group of the deceased. The question no.16 which was put to the petitioner in his accused statement is that the deceased, who was his wife died in his house and when P.W.13 came, the petitioner told him that the deceased was suffering from fever but P.W.13 came inside the house of the petitioner and he noticed blood stained mark on the

// 3 //

floor of the house, for which he advised the petitioner to take the deceased to the medical. The petitioner has simply denied it which has been taken as a circumstantial evidence against him. The learned counsel further submitted that the circumstantial evidence are not clinching. Though reliance was placed on the evidence of P.W.13 by the learned trial Court but P.W.13 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not enter into the house of the petitioner on that day and returned from outside the house of the petitioner. It is argued that there are good chances of success in the appeal and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that even though there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence but the deceased was the wife of the petitioner and her dead body was found lying in the house of the petitioner and the evidence of the doctor indicates that it is a case of homicidal death and the doctor noticed one stab injury on the middle left clavicle with leaking of blood from the wound and that the injury was held to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause her death. It is contended that in view of the available materials on record, the petitioner should not be released on bail.

Considering the submissions made by the

// 4 //

learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, absence of any direct evidence, nature of circumstantial evidence available on record and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and absence of any chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court below.

I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

I.A. No. 838 of 2020

05. Heard.

There shall be stay of realization of fine amount imposed by the learned trial court on the appellant- petitioner till disposal of the criminal appeal.

The Misc. case is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

// 5 //