Orissa High Court
Nirmal Luha vs State Of Odisha on 27 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.792 of 2024
Nirmal Luha .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Prajit Kumar Pradhan,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha ....
Respondent/
Opp. Party
Miss Subhalaxmi Devi,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.03.2025
I.A. No.1958 of 2024
09. 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 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty 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 three
months for the offence under section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code and both the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned Sessions Judge, Boudh in Sessions Trial
No.16 of 2023.
Perused the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.09.2022
and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and
the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.21, who are the
three sisters of the deceased, indicate that the
deceased told to them over phone that she was in the
company of her husband (petitioner) and the
petitioner also told them over phone that the
deceased was in his company and, therefore, the
evidence of these three witnesses in this respect have
been utilized as the last seen of the two and, more
particularly, thereafter nobody has seen the deceased
alive and the dead body of the deceased was
recovered on 06.09.2022 from an abandoned well.
However, the first information report, which was
lodged by P.W.3 on 06.09.2022 does not indicate that
the deceased stated before her that she was in the
company of the petitioner nor the petitioner stated
that the deceased was in his company and the first
information report was lodged against unknown
person. Learned counsel further submits that in view
of the nature of evidence available on record, there
are good chances of success in the appeal and balance
of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and there
is no chance of early hearing of the appeal in the near
future and therefore, 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 evidence of
P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.21 so also the evidence of the
doctor (P.W.7), who conducted post mortem
examination and opined that the cause of death was
due to strangulation and the death was homicidal in
nature.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature
of evidence available on record, absence of any direct
evidence, 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
local solvent surety for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
PKP/KB
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 28-Mar-2025 15:23:30
