Orissa High Court
Budha @ Sushil Kumar vs State Of Odisha on 12 November, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.956 of 2019
Budha @ Sushil Kumar
..... Appellant/Petitioner
Rout
Mr. Rajib Bihari Mishra,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/Opp. Party
Mr. Jateswar Nayak
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 12.11.2024
07. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Perused the prisoner's petition at flag 'C' wherein
request has been made for engagement of Mr. Rajib
Bihari Mishra as his Advocate in place of Mr. Ananta
Kumar Acharya, learned counsel.
The vakalatnama has also been filed by Mr. Rajib
Bihari Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of the
appellant.
Except the names of Mr. Rajib Bihari Mishra,
learned counsel and his associates, other names of
earlier engaged counsel shall not be reflected in the
cause list henceforth.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
08. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail.
Heard.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), in default, to
further undergo R.I. for a period of six months by the
learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No.84
of 2015.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.10.2014 and
initially the first information report was lodged by P.W.2
Trilochan Baral, who is the father of the deceased
Swarnalata Rout @ Kuni @ Barsa and the said report
was lodged against the in-laws family members of the
deceased on the accusation that they demanded dowry
and subjected the deceased to physical and mental
torture and they have also killed the deceased. The
name of the petitioner does not find place in the first
information report nor he is a family member of the
husband of the deceased. However, the allegation
against the petitioner is that while the deceased had
been to a pond on the occurrence day at about 7.00 to
8.00 p.m., P.W.5 and P.W.6 heard her shouting that the
petitioner was killing her. Learned counsel further
submitted that P.W.5 Ushalata Rout is non-else than the
accused in the first information report and she happens
to be the mother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.6 is a
co-villager of the in-laws of the deceased. Learned
counsel further submitted that though P.W.5 has stated
that the deceased was shouting 'budha mote
maripakauchi mote banchaa' but P.W.6 has stated that
the deceased was shouting 'Sushila mote hanena, mote
bancha'. Learned counsel further submitted that the
doctor (P.W.8) has noticed stab wounds on the body of
the deceased though it is the prosecution case that the
assault was made by means of a 'katari'. He further
submitted that the weapon of offence was found inside
the saree of the deceased and it was sent for Chemical
Examination and the Chemical Examination Report
(Ext.19) indicates that there was no blood in the 'katari'.
It is further argued that there are good chances of
success in the appeal and balance of convenience is in
favour of the petitioner and there is no chance of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future and since the
petitioner has remained in custody for ten years, the
bail application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.6 and
P.W.8.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
evidence adduced during trial, 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,
we are 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.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one local
solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
RKM
Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 14-Nov-2024 14:16:52
