Orissa High Court
Shankar Naik vs State Of Odisha on 10 September, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 1111 of 2024
Shankar Naik .... Appellant(s)
Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Mr. Partha Sarathi Naik, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 10.09.2025
I.A. No. 2757 of 2024
03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
This is an application for bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
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 R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 302
of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in
default, to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence
under Section 201 of IPC and both the sentences were
directed to be run concurrently by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kodala in S.T. Case No. 36/2021 (CIS No.
ST 189/2021) arising out of G.R. Case No. 38 of 2021
(Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.38 dated 10.02.2021).
Perused the impugned judgment.
Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the
only circumstance available on record is the last seen of the
petitioner in the company of the deceased, who is none else
than his wife. According to P.W.10, the last seen was on
07.02.2021 but the dead body was found at a different place
on 10.02.2021, which is three days after the occurrence
and, therefore, it is very difficult to co-relate between the
two and it cannot be said that there is no chance of any third
person coming in contact with the deceased to commit the
offence in question. He further submits that the prosecution
has failed to establish any motive behind the crime and the
petitioner is in judicial custody for more than four years and
there are good chance of success in the appeal and there is
no chance of early hearing of the appeal and balance of
convenience is in favour of the appellant and he is having
four children, who are now staying in the house of P.W.10.
Therefore, the bail application of the appellant-petitioner
may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State also fairly submits that
the only material available against the petitioner is the last
seen evidence and the doctor (P.W.15) was conducted the
post mortem examination and opined that the cause of
death was homicidal in nature.
Considering the submission made by the respective
parties, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial
custody, absence of any direct evidence, the nature of
circumstantial evidence available on record and absence of
any chance of early hearing of the appeal, we are inclined to
release the appellant-petitioner on bail.
Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail pending
disposal of the appeal in the aforesaid case on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two
local solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction
of the learned trial Court, subject to condition that he shall
not indulge in any criminal activities in any manner.
Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall
entail cancellation of the bail.
The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S. S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Sep-2025 16:23:14
