Orissa High Court
Panda @ Kapila vs State Of Odisha on 17 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA No.92 of 2018
Panda @ Kapila ..... Appellant/
Biswal Petitioner
Ms. Swagatika Sahoo,
Advocate
on behalf of
Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 17.02.2025
06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
Heard.
Perused the impugned judgment.
The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for
the offences punishable under sections 302/201 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand),
in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of three months
for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand),
in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one
month for the offence under section 201 of the I.P.C.
and both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Baleswar
vide judgment and order dated 11.06.2018 passed in
Sessions Trial Case No.58 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.08.2015
and the occurrence in question took place on the
intervening night of 04/05.08.2015 and the petitioner
presented the first information report (for short,
"F.I.R.") at Sahadevkhunta police station on
05.08.2015 to the effect that he along with his
deceased wife, namely, Salama Singh were staying in
the brick kiln campus located at Kantabania village
since last three years and on the intervening night of
04/05.08.2015, the deceased suddenly fell ill during
her sleep for which, the petitioner shifted the deceased
to the hospital where the doctor declared her dead.
However, a U.D. case was registered and during course
of post mortem examination, it was found that it was a
case of homicidal death. The F.I.R. was lodged by one
A.S.I. of Sahadevkhunta police station against the
petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that
there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the
case is based on circumstantial evidence and the
circumstances are that the petitioner was last seen
with his wife and he gave false information to the
police at the first instance that his wife fell ill during
her sleep which is contrary to the post mortem
examination report findings and that at his instance, a
stick was recovered. Learned counsel further submitted
that in view of the available materials on record, there
are good chances of success in the appeal and the
balance of convenience is in his favour and since there
is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near
future, 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 placed the statement
of the doctor (P.W.4), who has stated that the cause of
death of the deceased was due to shock on account of
injury to the vital organ like brain and she has noticed
some bruises, abrasion and lacerated wounds on
different parts of the body. Learned counsel further
placed the evidence of the witnesses relating to
recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. stick at the
instance of the petitioner and submitted that the
confessional statement of the petitioner leading to the
recovery has been videographed as has been stated by
P.W.7 in two nos. of C.Ds.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, the nature of
evidence adduced during trial, absence of any direct
evidence against the petitioner, 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
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.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Sipun
