Prabhanjan Tripathy vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 3721 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prabhanjan Tripathy vs State Of Odisha on 6 February, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             CRLA No.1044 of 2023

              Prabhanjan Tripathy                   ....      Appellant/
                                                             Petitioner

                                   Mr. Santosh Kumar Mahanty,
                                   Advocate

                                         -versus-

              State of Odisha                       ....    Respondent/
                                                            Opp. Party

                                   Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty,
                                   Addl. Standing Counsel

                             CORAM:
                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
             THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                     ORDER

Order No.                          06.02.2025

                              I.A. No.2271 of 2023

   05.            This    matter    is    taken     up    through   Hybrid

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard.

The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under sections 302/201 the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of one

year for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Special Judge, Bhanjanagar in Special G.R. Case No.26 of 2018.

Perused the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.09.2018 and though he faced trial, inter alia, for offence under section 3(2)(v)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, but he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence in question stated to have taken place on 28.08.2018 and the first information report was lodged against unknown person on 06.09.2018 and there is no direct evidence in the case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is stated that the petitioner made confessional statement before the police in presence of two independent witnesses i.e. P.W.7 and P.W.10 but those two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The dead body was recovered on 19.09.2018 and the only material available on

record is the evidence of P.W.5, who is the mother of the deceased and she has stated that while leaving the house, the deceased told her that he was going to the petitioner to bring Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) and thereafter, the deceased did not return home. It is stated that in view of the available material on record, chain of circumstances is not complete and there are good chances of success in the appeal and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that apart from the evidence of P.W.5, mother of the deceased, on the basis of the statement of the petitioner after he was taken into custody, the dead body of the deceased as well as the motorcycle was recovered from a concealed place inside a jungle and the weapon of offence i.e. an axe was recovered at the instance of the petitioner from a poultry farm and the petitioner has not offered any explanation in his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. on these vital aspects. Learned counsel further submitted that the post mortem report indicates that the deceased had sustained six chop/cut wounds, which has been opined by the doctor, to have been caused

by heavy sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death has been opined to be coma on account of injury to the head, neck and spinal cord.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of circumstantial evidence available on record against the petitioner and the manner in which the death has taken place, we are not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.

I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

( Savitri Ratho) Judge RKM

Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Feb-2025 17:58:21