Bholeswar Bhoi vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 193 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bholeswar Bhoi vs State Of Odisha on 5 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                             JCRLA No.05 of 2020

                             Bholeswar Bhoi                   .....          Appellant/
                                                                           Petitioner
                                                           Mr. Biswa Bhusan Mishra,
                                                           Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K.
                                                           Padhi, 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 MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                                       ORDER

05.05.2025

16. 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.

Perused the impugned judgment.

Signature Not Verified The appellant-petitioner has been convicted for the Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication offences punishable under sections 302/498-A of I.P.C. Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 18:01:42

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months for the offence under section 498-A of I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2019 passed in C.T.(s) Case No.134 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the custody certificate, which was produced by the learned counsel for the State from the Superintendent, Circle Jail, Angul dated 16.12.2024 indicates that as on that date, the petitioner was in judicial custody for ten years, seven months and four days and thus, by now, he is in custody for more than eleven years. Learned counsel argued that P.W.10 is an eye witness to the occurrence but she has not supported the prosecution case for which she was declared hostile by the prosecution and the witnesses to the extra judicial confession of the petitioner are P.W.1, the informant, P.W.15, the sister-in-law of the deceased and P.W.17, the mother of the deceased. Learned counsel further argued that though all these three witnesses have stated that the petitioner confessed his guilt before them, who

have assaulted the deceased by means of a bamboo plank and thereafter P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the first information report but the extra judicial confession part is conspicuously absent in the F.I.R. which creates doubt about such version by the three witnesses and therefore, the petitioner has got 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 apart from placing the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses to the extra judicial confession, placed the statement of the doctor (P.W.15), who conducted the post mortem examination and noticed multiple injuries on different parts of the body (including the head) and opined that the cause of death was on account of extensive tissue injury and shock.

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

(S. S. Mishra) Judge sipun