Orissa High Court
Sk. Yakub vs State Of Orissa on 16 January, 2025
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 49 of 2014
Sk. Yakub .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Shyam Manohar, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 16.01.2025
21. I.A. No.139 of 2014
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video
conferencing/physical mode).
2. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Counsel for the State.
4. The Appellant-Petitioner has been convicted under sections
396/364/120-B/323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life 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 396 of the
Indian Penal Code; sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for
10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence U/s.364 of
IPC, in default to, to under further R.I. for two months; and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) for the offence U/s. 120-B of
the IPC; and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year for the offence U/s.323 of the IPC by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Jeypore vide judgment and order dated
18.12.2013 passed in Criminal Trial Case No.13 of 2012.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.08.2011 and produced
the custody certificate which has been issued by the
Superintendent, Circle Jail, Koraput dated 15.01.2025. It indicates
that the Petitioner has remained in custody for more than 13 years.
The Custody certificate is taken on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that five
persons faced trial including the Petitioner before the learned
Trial Court, inter alia, for offence U/s.396 of IPC, out of which
three of them have been acquitted and there is no finding that
these two Petitioners along with others committed the crime so as
to satisfy the ingredients of the offence U/s.396 of the IPC. He
further submitted that P.W.18, Manoj Pradhan is an eye witness to
the occurrence is also the Informant in the case. He lodged the
F.I.R. against unknown persons and while deposing in Court, he
stated that so far as the deceased, Sudhir Parida is concerned, one
of the six persons dealt blows on his head by means of sharp
cutting weapon called as meat chopper, as a result of which, the
deceased sustained bleeding injury. He further submitted that then
two of those six persons pressed down the head of the deceased in
between the two front seats of the Bolero vehicle and they also
closed the window gate so as to prevent the alarm of the deceased
to go outside.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Informant (P.W.18) has not made a specific statement while
deposing in Court that the present Petitioner is the person who
assaulted by means of meat chopper on the head of the deceased
and that there are good chance of success in the Appeal and even
though Paper Book has already been prepared, since there is no
chance of early hearing and the Petitioner is a local man, the bail
application may be favourably considered.
8. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand opposed
the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.18 and
submitted that the Petitioner was not only identified in the test
identification parade but also in Court by P.W.18 and some overt-
act has been attributed against the Petitioner by P.W.18 which
would indicate that the Petitioner was present at the time of
occurrence in the Bolero vehicle and actively participated in the
crime.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respective parties, nature of evidence adduced by P.W.18,
and the period of detention of the Petitioner in judicial custody
and in absence of any chance of early hearing, we are inclined to
release the Petitioner on bail.
10. 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 two solvent sureties each 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 including the condition that he shall not involve in any
criminal activities while on bail.
11. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail.
12. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
13. Issue certified copy as per Rules.
Mr. Shyam Manohar, learned Counsel submits that he has
filed Vakalatnama on the basis of the prisoners petition.
Accordingly, the names of the other counsels except Mr. Shyam
Manohar and his Associates shall not be reflected in the cause list
henceforth.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Narayan/ Bijay
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
