Orissa High Court
Prakash Kumar Khuntia vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 19 November, 2024
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.10364 of 2024
Prakash Kumar Khuntia .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate
(Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
19.11.2024
Order No.
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State and the Informant.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T.
Case No.146 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar arising out of Khandagiri
P.S. Case No.288 of 2022 for commission of offence
alleged under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/34 IPC & under
Section 4 of the DP Act.
3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that
except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the
Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is
pending in any other Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application
for bail U/s.483 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar by
order dated 27.08.2024 in the aforementioned case, the
present BLAPL has been filed.
5. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this
Court. Earlier bail applications of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL
No.11290 of 2022 and BLAPL No.884 of 2023 were
disposed of by this Court by orders dated 03.01.2023 and
27.07.2023 respectively.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
Petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2022 and as the trial
has progressed and since there is no chance of him
fleeing the course of justice, his further continuance in
custody is not warranted.
7. Learned counsel for the State and Informant
oppose the prayer for bail.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Informant that this Court, while rejecting the second bail
application of the Petitioner by order dated 27.07.2023 in
BLAPL No.884 of 2023, had taken note of the nature of
injuries and hence referring to the same, he submits that
the bail application of the Petitioner is liable to be
rejected.
9. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner that the prosecution has
cited 26 witnesses and deposition of 10 witnesses are on
record.
10. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.7- the
Medical Officer.
11. It is stated by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that P.W.2 to 4 are independent witnesses and
they have not supported the prosecution and the
Petitioner was twice released on interim bail and he
surrendered on the scheduled date. Hence, he seeks
release.
12. Such submission is refuted by the learned counsel
for the Informant stating that the Petitioner suppressed
the material fact that he is not the only son and sought
interim bail. As such the same ought not to weigh with
this Court.
13. Taking into account the principles for considering
the bail as reiterated by the Apex Court in the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manish
Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, this Court directs the
Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed
by the learned Court in seisin.
14. Additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall
appear before the jurisdictional police station once every
month on such date and time to be fixed by the learned
Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such
appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.
15. It is further directed that Petitioner shall not in any
way try to intimidate and influence the witnesses.
16. It shall be open for the prosecution to seek
variance of this order in the event there is any threat
perception.
17. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
18. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
(V. NARASINGH)
Soumya Judge
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Nov-2024 19:56:35
