Jandu @ Janda Munda vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 8284 Ori

Orissa High Court

Jandu @ Janda Munda vs State Of Odisha on 16 September, 2025

Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         CRA No. 241 of 1998

             1. Jandu @ Janda Munda
             2. Jamadar @ Jayaprakash
             Laguri
             3. Nanu @ Naresh (Janda)
             Laguri
             4. Kanda Laguri
             5. Harish Laguri
             6. Arjun @ Ananda Laguri        ....     Appellants

                               Mr. A.K. Acharya, Advocate

                                  -versus-
             State of Odisha                 ....    Respondent

                               Mr. Jateswar Nayak,
                               Additional Govt. Advocate


                                 CORAM:
             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN
                            DASH
                             ORDER

Order No. 16.09.2025

16. This criminal appeal has been filed by six persons, namely, Jandu @ Janda Munda, Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri, Nanu @ Naresh (genda) Laguri, Kanda Laguri, Harish Laguri and Arjun @ Ananda Laguri challenging the judgment and order dated 23.06.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Sessions Trial Case No.153 of 1997 holding them guilty for the offences under sections

148/302/149/307/149 and U/s.120-B/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

During the pendency of the appeal vide order dated 21.04.2000, the appellants nos. 1, 5 and 6 namely, Jandu @ Janda Munda, Harish Laguri and Arjun @ Ananda Laguri were directed to be released on bail by this Court in Misc. Case No.154 of 2000.

When the matter was taken up on 18.04.2024, nobody appeared for the appellants. This Court directed the learned counsel for the State to obtain instruction regarding the whereabouts and wellbeing of the aforesaid appellants nos.1, 5 and 6 who were directed to be released on bail vide order dated 21.04.2000. Report was also called for from the learned trial Court regarding other appellants i.e., appellants nos. 2 to 4 relating to their placements.

When the matter was taken up next on 28.08.2024, learned counsel for the State produced the written instruction received from the IIC, Champua police station which shows that the appellant Nos.1 and 6, namely, Jandu @ Janda Munda and Arjun @ Ananda Laguri were dead since long and since this Court found that the near relations had not taken any step to pursue the appeal on their behalf, therefore, the appeal stood dismissed as to have abated against them and it was specifically

mentioned in the order dated 28.08.2024 that the appeal survives only for appellant nos.2 to 5.

When the matter was taken up on 15.07.2025, we made a query to the learned counsel for the State regarding the wellbeing of appellant nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, who took time to obtain instruction in that respect.

On perusal of the letter dated 25.07.2025 of the Superintendent of District Jail, Keonjhar, it reveals that the appellant no.4 Kanda Laguri has been released prematurely on 01.06.2017 as per the order of D.G. of prisons and D.C.S. Odisha.

On 31.07.2025, when the matter was taken up and the learned counsel for the State produced the written instruction dated 16.07.2025 received from the Inspector In-Charge of Champua police station to the effect that appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 are of village Tandaghutu, P.S. Jagannthapur, Dist. West Singhbhum (Bihar) are in good health condition and staying in their houses, on verification of the records since we found that no bail order has been passed in favour of appellant nos. 2 and 3, we passed the following order:-

"Out of the three appellants, it appears that appellant no.5 Harish Laguri has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2000 passed in Misc. Case No.154 of

2000 whereas the prayer for bail of appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri and appellant No.3 Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri has been rejected. Thereafter, no bail order has been passed in respect of the said appellant nos.2 and 3. However, another written instruction has been produced by the learned counsel for the State Keonjhar dated 25.07.2025 wherein it is mentioned that so far as appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri is concerned, he was an Under Trial Prisoner from 16.02.1997 to 22.05.1998 and no further information is available. Similarly, so far as appellant No.3 Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri is concerned, it is mentioned that he was an Under Trial Prisoner from 15.02.1997 to 22.06.1998 and a convict from 23.06.1998 to 25.12.2009 and thereafter, transferred to Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari for further confinement. The written instructions taken on record.

The Vakalatnama filed by appellant ros.2 and 3 along with other appellants indicates that it was attested by the Assistant Jailor, Keonjhar District Jail on 06.07.1998, which supposes that appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri was in District Jail, Keonjhar as on 06.07.1998. Therefore, the

report furnished by Superintendent, District Jail, Keonjhar dated 25.07.2025 that further information in respect of appellant no.2 is not available, is a misleading statement.

Let the learned counsel for the State obtain specific instruction relating to appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaorakash Laguri so also about appellant No.3 Nanu @ Naresn (janda) Laguri as to how they came to reside in their village when no bail order has been passed in respect of said appellants.

List this matter on 07.08.2025.

Instruction shall be obtained in the meantime".

When the matter was then taken up on 12.08.2025, the following order was passed:-

"Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate produces the letter dated 04.08.2025 issued to the Supdt., District Jail, Keonjhar, Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari and Inspector in-charge of Champua police station for obtaining instruction as per the order dated 31.07.2025."

In the order dated 31.07.2025, we have mentioned the report produced before us by the learned counsel for the State from Inspector In-

charge of Champua police station dated 16.07.2025, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri, and appellant no.3 Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri are in good health condition and staying in their houses and they are of village Tandaghutu, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist-West Singhbhum (Bihar).

When we found that they have not been granted bail in this criminal appeal, we asked the learned counsel for the State to obtain specific instruction relating to appellant no.2 and appellant no.3 as to how they came to reside in their village, when no bail order has been passed in respect of the said two appellants.

Today, learned counsel for the State has produced the letter dated 07.08.2025 received from the Superintendent, Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari, wherein it is stated as follows:-

"In inviting a kind reference to the letter on the subject cited above, I am to intimate as per available record/registers that, the appellant no.3 i.e. convict no.262/A, Hanu @ Naresh (Jenda) Laguri, S/o-

Lachhman Laguri, of village-

Tandaghutu, Ps-Jagannathpur, Dist-

West Singhbhum, Bihar was

admitted at Biju Patnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari 25.12.2009 being transferred from District Jail, Keonjhar. The said convict was released on furlough leave from 25.03.2010 to 03.04.2010 for a period of 10 days. Unfortunately, he has not surrendered himself till date before the Ashram Authorities after availing the said furlough leave. In this connection, several correspondences were issued to the concerned Inspector In-charge, for necessary action at their end.

       As   regard        appellant        no.2,
namely,     Jamadar        @     Jayaprakash

Laguri, S/o-Nandalal Laguri, it is found from the available record/registers that, he was the surety during the time of furlough release of said appellant no.3 (dated 25.03.2010)"

It is not understood as to how the appellant no.2 was allowed to be a surety for appellant no.3 and if after the furlough leave period has expired, the appellant no.3 did not surrender, what steps have been

taken by the Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari authorities for his apprehension and how appellant no.2 was released from the Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari.

Learned counsel for the State shall obtain clarification on all these aspects from the concerned Superintendent and apprise this Court on the next date.

List this matter on 14.08.2025.

A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State in course of the day for compliance".

When the matter was taken up on 02.09.2025, the following order was passed:-

"As per order dated 12.08.2025, when we found that both appellants nos.2 and 3, namely, Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri and Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri respectively were lost in Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari and appellant no.3 Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri was released on furlough leave from 25.03.2010 to 03.04.2010 for a period of ten days and appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash

Laguri was allowed to be a surety for appellant no.3 and further found that after the furlough leave period expired, appellant no.3 did not surrender and from the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, we found that both the appellants are now available in their village and we also did not find any bail order in respect of appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri, we asked the learned counsel for the State to obtain clarification on all these aspects from the concerned Superintendent and apprise this Court.

We posted the matter to 14.08.2025 on which date, the learned counsel for the State sought for more time. Today, also the learned counsel for the State is unable to obtain the clarification as per the order dated 12.08.2025.

Let the Superintendent of Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari file an affidavit explaining as to what steps have been taken against appellant no.3 Nanu @ Naresh (Janda) Laguri, who did not surrender after the furlough leave period expired and how the appellant no.2 Jamadar @ Jayaprakash Laguri was released from the Ashram.

Specific averments with documentary proof

in that connection shall be brought on record by way of an affidavit. The affidavit shall be filed by 12.09.2025.

List this matter on 16.09.2025.

A free copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State". Today, learned counsel for the State has filed an affidavit dated 12.09.2025 of Ms. Smita Mohanty, Superintendent, Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari, Dist-Khorda (hereafter, "Ashram"), wherein it is specifically mentioned that appellant no.3 Hanu Laguri @ Naresh Laguri @ Genda was admitted at Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari on 25.12.2009 being transferred from District Jail, Keonjhar and he was released on furlough leave from 25.03.2010 to 03.04.2010 for a period of ten days and he was supposed to return from furlough leave on 04.04.2010, but till today, he has not surrendered before the Ashram authorities. Most peculiarly, appellant no.2 was allowed to be a surety for appellant no.3 and the surety bond and agreement copy have been annexed to the affidavit. However, it is mentioned in the affidavit that appellant no.2 was never admitted in the Biju Pattnaik Open Air Ashram, Jamujhari. If the appellant no.2 was never admitted in the Ashram, how could he be allowed to be a surety, particularly when he was a convict in the

case. No explanation has been forthcoming in the affidavit with regard to this.

The affidavit further reveals that in the agreement paper of furlough bond, the address of the appellant no.3 has been given as village Kankadajodi, P.S- Champua, District- Keonjhar though he was a man from West Singhbhum, in the State of Jharkhand. In paragraph no.5, it is mentioned that messages were sent to Officer in- charge of Jagannathpur police station, West Singhbhum on different dates i.e. from the year 2010 to 2021 to make necessary arrangement of appellant no.3 to return to the Ashram since he has not surrendered after the period of furlough leave was over. W.T. messages as well as the letters have been annexed to the affidavit.

In the affidavit, it is further stated that one letter no.1833 dated 16.07.2025 has been sent by the Inspector In-Charge of Champua police station, which is addressed to the learned Advocate General that appellant no.3 is in good health condition and staying at his house in village Tadangahatu, which is obviously in response to the order passed by this Court and accordingly, it seems that the Ashram authorities requested the Inspector in-charge of Champua to take necessary steps to recapture appellant no.3.

However, the Inspector In-Charge of Champua police station in response to such letters indicated that village of appellant no.3 does not come under Champua police station jurisdiction and it comes under Jagannathpur police station. Accordingly, the Ashram authorities seem to have requested the Inspector in-charge of Jagannathpur police station to recapture appellant no.3, but no response has been received.

On perusal of the affidavit and the orders passed by this Court, it appears that everything has been done in a very casual way even though appellant nos.2 & 3 were the life convicts and one life convict was allowed to go on furlough leave on the surety bond of the other i.e. appellant no.2 and even though appellant no.2 was not staying in the Ashram as per the affidavit filed.

Another peculiar feature is how appellant No. 2 is now staying in his village even though he was neither granted bail by this Court nor has any record been produced before this Court showing that he was either released prematurely or by way of leave or otherwise. If the release order of appellant No. 2 is not available on record, and appellant No. 3 has flouted the terms and conditions of the furlough leave, and they are now residing in their respective villages, it is not understood why no steps have been

taken for recapturing them in accordance with law and why only letter correspondences have been made right from 2010 till date. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent, Ashram, is taken on record.

The negligence of the Jail Authorities/IICs is apparent on the face of the record. Let the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Odisha, file an affidavit as to what steps have been taken to ascertain how appellant No. 2, in spite of not being released on bail by this Court, is now moving freely in his village; how appellant No. 2 was allowed to be a surety for appellant No. 3; why necessary steps to recapture appellant No. 3 were not taken even though he had not returned to the Ashram after availing of the furlough leave for ten days; and what action has been taken against the erring officials for giving misleading information to this Court.

List this matter on 14.10.2025.

A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for compliance.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

PRAVAKAR NAYAK

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Sep-2025 19:00:24