Orissa High Court
Papu @ Pravat Nayak vs State Of Odisha on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.2852 of 2020
Papu @ Pravat Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. Debasnan Das,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.M.K.Mohanty,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
16.11.2021.
Order No.
15. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Debasnan Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr.M.K.Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. The petitioner is in custody since 10th February, 2020 in
connection with G.R. Case No.1287/2005 arising out of Lalbag
P.S. Case No.170/2005 of the court learned S.D.J.M.(S),
Cuttack, which has since been committed to the court of
// 2 //
Session for the alleged commission of offence under Section
302/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosive
Act.
4. The prosecution case is that on 17th August, 2005 at about
1.30 P.M., the present accused-Petitioner being associated with
four other persons committed murder of one Balia @ Srimanta
Rout near Bhagabat Ghar at Kanika Chhak, Cuttack. Such
act is stated to have been committed by the accused persons by
dealing sword blows and hurling bombs at the deceased.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Das that in the mean time trial against
other accused persons has been concluded in which four of the
co-accused persons have been acquitted while only accused
namely, Arakhita Nayak was convicted. In another split up
trial, another co-accused namely, Ranjan Parida has also been
convicted. It is further submitted that both the said convicts
have preferred appeals before this Court and have been released
on bail by order of this Court passed in Crl. Appeal
Nos.213/2012 and 568/2012 respectively.
6. On the above basis, it is forcefully argued by Mr.Das that
the judgment of the trial court in respect of other accused
persons is very clear that the said Arkhita Naiak and Ranjan
Parida were the principal offenders and there is no material to
link the present accused in the occurrence.
// 3 //
7. Mr.Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, has opposed
the prayer for bail by submitting that the Petitioner has
absconded for long period and, hence, no leniency should be
shown to him.
8. Considering the rival submissions as above, the period of
detention already undergone and the fact that the Petitioner is a
permanent resident under Lalbag P.S. in the district of Cuttack,
this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
9. Let the Petitioner-Papu @ Pravat Nayak be released on bail
on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the court in
seisin over the matter including the condition that he shall
personally appear before the trial court on each date of posting
of the case without fail.
10. The BLAPL is disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
AKB Judge
