Orissa High Court
Satyananda Naik vs State Of Odisha on 27 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.429 of 2018
1. Satyananda Naik .... Appellants/
2. Rasananda Naik Petitioners
Mr. C. Sahoo,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent/
Opp. Party
Mr. Sarat Pradhan,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
ORDER
Order No. 27.01.2025
I.A. No.1055 of 2018
03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application under section 389 of the
Cr.P.C. for bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants-
petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners have been convicted for the
offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter 'the I.P.C.') and each of the
convicts are sentenced to imprisonment of life and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to further go
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence
under section 302/34 of the Indian penal Code by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Champua vide
judgment and order dated 09.04.2018 passed in S.T.
Case No.50 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the appellant no.1-petitioner Satyananda Naik is in
judicial custody for nine years eight months and
appellant no.2-petitioner Rasananda Naik is in judicial
custody for nine years nine months.
Learned counsel for the State produces custody
certificates of the petitioners, which also substantiate
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. The custody certificates are taken on
record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the two appellants along with their father Balaram
Naik faced trial under section 302/506 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them
were found guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, though they were acquitted of the charge
under section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
father of the petitioners is now dead. The conviction of
the petitioners is mainly based on the evidence of two
eyewitnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3 and they are
related to the deceased Dusashan Naik. So far as
P.W.2 is concerned, he stated that the appellant no.1-
petitioner Satyananda Naik assaulted the deceased by
means of a brick but P.W.3 has stated that appellant
no.1-petitioner used budia in assaulting the deceased.
Similarly, so far as appellant no.2-petitioner
Rasananda Naik is concerned, P.W.2 has stated that
the said appellant used budia in assaulting the
deceased whereas P.W.3 has stated that appellant
no.2-petitioner used stone and brick in assaulting the
deceased. Learned counsel submits that in view of the
discrepancies in the evidence of two eyewitnesses
relating to the weapons used by the petitioners in
assaulting the deceased, there are good chances of
success in the appeal. He further submits that the
paper book has not been prepared and there is no
chance of early hearing and therefore, the bail
application of the petitioners may be favourably
considered.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the
prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.3 so also the doctor P.W.26, who conducted the
post mortem examination and stated that the cause of
death is cranio cerebral injury sustained and its
complications thereof.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of
evidence adduced by two eyewitnesses during trial,
the period of detention of the petitioners in judicial
custody and absence of any chance of early hearing of
the appeal in the near future, we are inclined to
release the petitioners on bail.
Let the petitioners be released on bail pending
disposal of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) each with one
solvent surety each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court with such terms
and conditions as the learned trial Court may deem
just and proper and including the condition that they
shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
Violation of any of the terms and conditions
fixed shall entail cancellation of bail.
The I.A. is disposed of.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(A.C. Behera)
Judge
Rajesh
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 28-Jan-2025 16:31:13
