Orissa High Court
Mahadev Kisan vs State Of Odisha on 10 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 173 of 2018
Mahadev Kisan
..... Appellant/
Petitioner
Ms. B. Tripathy,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Mr.Aurobinda Mohanty,
Addl.Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Order No. ORDER
10.02.2025
I.A. No.41 of 2025
09. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for bail.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for
the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand),
in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of three months by the learned
Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda vide judgment and order
dated 11.12.2017 passed in S.T. Case No. 08 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in judicial custody for more than eight
years. She has produced the custody certificate, which
is taken on record. Learned counsel further submits that
as per the prosecution case, the occurrence in question
took place on 24.11.2016 and due to a sudden quarrel
between the petitioner and his brother Jukta Kishan
(deceased), the petitioner got angry and dealt a blow by
means of a bamboo stick on the head of the deceased,
as a result of which the deceased was shifted to the
hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. She
further submits that there is no direct evidence in the
case and the main allegation against the petitioner is
based on leading to discovery of the bamboo stick on
the basis of the statement recorded under section 27 of
the Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submits that
paper book is not ready and there is no chance of early
hearing. Learned counsel further submits that there are
good chances of success in the appeal and balance of
convenience is in favour of the petitioner and therefore,
the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
placed the evidence of the doctor (P.W.11), who
conducted the post mortem examination and has opined
that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the
brain injury and haemorrhage and due to the impact of
blunt force/trauma on head.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, absence of any direct
evidence, surrounding circumstances under which the
occurrence took place, the relationship between the
petitioner and the deceased, absence of any chance of
early hearing of the appeal in the near future and taking
into account the period of detention of the petitioner in
judicial custody, 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 solvent
surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court with such terms and conditions as the
learned Court may deem just and proper.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail.
The I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
PKSahoo
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
