Orissa High Court
Eka @ Ekadasia Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 4 February, 2021
CRLA No.693 of 2018
1
I.A. No.609 of 2019
Eka @ Ekadasia Sahu ... Appellant No.2/
Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent/
Opp. party
04. 04.02.2021 The matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
This is an application for interim bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want
to press this application.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of as not
pressed.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
I.A. No.1697 of 2018
1. Rahash Sahu
2. Eka @ Ekadasia Sahu
3. Madhu Sahu ... Appellants/
Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent/
Opp. party
05. 04.02.2021 This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellants-petitioners have been convicted
under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default of
payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for two months
for the offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in
C.T. No.08 of 2010.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners were on bail during trial and they have
never misutilised their liberty and after pronouncement of
the judgment by the learned trial Court on 17.09.2018,
they were taken into custody. He further submitted that
the post mortem report indicates that the deceased has
sustained four injuries on the left leg, right leg, left hand
and right hand and all the four injuries were fractured but
the sole eye witness to the occurrence is P.W.10 who has
stated in the cross-examination that petitioner no.3
Madhu gave the first blow to the deceased and then he
gave four to five blows to the deceased and those blows
landed on the right hand and left leg of the deceased. He
further stated that then petitioner no.2 Eka @ Ekadasia
Sahu gave five blows to the deceased and those blows
landed on the right hand and left leg of the deceased and
then petitioner no.1 Rahash Sahu assaulted the deceased
with a lathi and the blows landed on the latter's right leg.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the manner of assault as deposed to by the eye
witness (P.W.10) would have brought more number of
injuries on the person of the deceased which rather
indicates that the oral evidence of P.W.10 relating to the
manner of assault is not getting corroboration from the
post mortem report. He further submitted that though
the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the deceased was taken as
dying declaration but the deceased in his dying
declaration stated that petitioner no.3 Madhu Sahu
assaulted on his left leg and again he assaulted on his
left leg and right leg and then petitioners nos.1 and 2
conjointly assaulted him and this also does not tally with
the evidence of P.W.10 as given in the cross-
examination. He further submitted that the doctor, who
conducted post mortem examination has been examined
as P.W.11 and he stated that the cause of death was
syncope due to haemorrhage on account of the multiple
injuries sustained by the deceased. He further submitted
that there are good chances of success in the appeal and
there is no chance of early hearing of appeal in the near
future and balance of convenience is in favour of the
petitioners and therefore, the bail application of the
petitioners may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of
the eye witness (P.W.10) as well as the evidence of the
doctor (P.W.11).
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for
the respective parties, the nature of evidence adduced by
the prosecution during trial, the fact that the petitioners
were on bail during trial and there is no allegation of
misutilization of their liberty while on bail, the period of
detention of the petitioners in judicial custody after
pronouncement of judgment and absence of any chance
of early hearing of the appeal in the near future, the
prayer for bail is allowed.
Let the appellants-petitioners be released on bail
pending disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with two local
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
The Misc. Case is disposed of.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
I.A. No.1698 of 2018
06. 04.02.2021 Heard.
There shall be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned trial Court on the appellants-
petitioners till disposal of the criminal appeal.
The Misc. Case is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
.............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
RKM
