Orissa High Court
Nahia @ Sanjay Jena vs Unknown on 26 February, 2021
BLAPL No. 7138 of 2020
Nahia @ Sanjay Jena .... Petitioner
-Vrs.-
State of Odisha .... Opp. party
0 For Petitioner: Mr. D. Nayak, Senior Advocate and
Mr. Balaram Nayak, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Saswata Pattnaik,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
26.02.2021 I have heard Mr. D. Nayak, learned counsel for the
03.
petitioner and Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate for the State through Video Conferencing mode.
This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail to the petitioner- Nahia @ Sanjay Jena in connection
with Basta P.S. Case No.24 of 2009 corresponding to S.T. Case
No.64 of 2020 pending in the Court of the learned Sessions
Judge, Baleswar registered for commission of offence punishable
under Sections 143/147/448/341/323/294/506/302/149 of
I.P.C.
The petitioner had moved an application for bail before
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Baleswar which was
rejected on 23.09.2020.
The prosecution allegations in brief is that Babu @
Manoranjan Biswal, brother of the informant had married one
Urmila lenka @ Rumi for which there was some opposition from
the rest of his family, so he was living separately with her. On
24.01.2009 at about 8.00 am, there was some dispute in
between the brothers of the informant and son of Damodar Roul
of their village. Urmila, for which wife of Babu @ Manoranjan
Roul (brother of the informant) informed her parents and
brother, after which the accused persons came to the house of
the informant in the evening and challenged his family members
2
for torturing Urmila. Hadibandhu (deceased), father of the
informant tried to reason with them, but the accused persons
assaulted the informant, his brothers as well as Hadibandhu.
Hadibandhu was kicked in the scrotum by one Biswajit Singh. He
lost consciousness and thereafter died at the spot.
This is the successive bail application of the petitioner.
His prayer for bail had earlier been rejected in BLAPL No.1546 of
2020 vide order dated 04.08.2020 on the ground that the
petitioner alongwith another had absconded for which the case
had to be split up against them.
Mr. D. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate has submitted
that the petitioner is in custody since date of his arrest i.e.
28.01.2020. The case against him has been committed in the
meanwhile to the Court of Sessions. He further submits that co-
accused persons - Jayanarayan Rout, Satyanarayan Rout and
Biswajit Singh who had faced trial in S.T. No. 53/156 of 2011
have been acquitted vide judgment dated 24.12.2011. Referring
to the evidence of P.W.5 is the informant who is the son of the
deceased has stated that his father died due to his ailment like
hernia and heart disease and the accused persons are not
responsible for his death.
The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has
absconded for more than eleven years for which the case had to
be split up against him. Judgment in the split up trial has been
delivered on 24.12.2011, but even after that, the petitioner did
think it proper to surrender.
Sukanta On perusal of the depositions of the seven witnesses
examined in the trial, I find that none of them (including P.W.5)
supported the prosecution case for which they have been cross
examined by the prosecution. The I.O and the medical officer
3
were not examined. This was when the petitioner was roaming
about scot free.
In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that
the possibility of the petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses
in the trial cannot be ruled out. In addition to that, in view of the
prior conduct of the petitioner, the possibility of his absconding
after his release on bail can also not be ruled out.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh
vs. State reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118 has held that there are
two paramount considerations, while considering a petition for
grant of bail in a non bailable offence, apart from seriousness of
the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
his tampering with prosecution witnesses are to be considered.
As the possibility of the petitioner absconding after his
release on bail or influencing prosecutions witnesses cannot be
ruled out, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
It has been stated at the Bar that the case has been
committed. Hence it is open to the petitioner to move for bail
afresh after examination of the prosecution witnesses.
The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.
..........................
Savitri Ratho, J.
