[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mr. D.P. Dhal vs State Of Orissa And Another on 10 February, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Prakash Majhi @ Prakash Kumar
Majhi and others
(In CRLA No.197 of 2025)
Sukash Majhi
(In CRLA No.348 of 2025) ... Appellants
Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. K. Mohanty, Advocate
(for all the appellants)
-versus-
State of Orissa and another ... Respondents
Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
Mr. M.B. Rao, Advocate (Informant)
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 10.02.2026
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. These two criminal appeals in the nature of bail
under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with
amendment Act, 2016 (in short, "the Act") are directed
against the impugned orders dated 23.12.2024/
03.03.2025 passed in ST Case No.162 of 2022/Special
GR Case No.162 of 2022 by which the learned
Sessions/Special Judge, Sundargarh, has refused to
grant bail to the appellants in connection with Bargaon
PS Case No.135 of 2022, for commission of offence
punishable U/Ss.341/294/323/302/506/34 of IPC r/w
Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v)(va) of the Act, on the main
allegation of committing murder of one Ghanashyam
Majhi by assaulting him indiscriminately, along with co-
accused persons.
3. Heard, Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior
Counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Kaustuva Mohanty,
learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. R.B. Mishra,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.
Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel who while entering
appearance for the informant in the Court today by filing
two Vakalatnamas produces two affidavits of the
witness-Muna Majhi, which are taken on record.
3.1. It is, however, specifically submitted by Mr. Rao
that the family members of the informant has been
ostracized and they apprehends danger at the end of the
appellants, if they are released on bail.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against
the appellants for committing murder of the deceased
Ghanashyam Majhi by indiscriminately assaulting him
along with co-accused persons, but the FIR averments
reveals that the deceased Ghanashyam Majhi had
allegedly killed the father of the appellant No.1-Prakash
Majhi @ Prakash Kumar Majhi in CRLA No.197 of 2025.
Be that as it may, one of the eye witness to the
occurrence-cum-informant namely Muna Majhi has
already been examined, but Mr. Rao, learned counsel for
the informant submits that another eye witness namely
Hemabati Majhi is yet to be examined. No doubt, there
is allegation against the appellants for committing
murder, but the so called eye witness has testified about
the appellants assaulting the deceased by giving kick
and fist blows and, subsequently, battering a stone to
the chest of the deceased. However, the cause of death
of the deceased in the PM report is opined to be on
account of traumatic asphyxia and its complication.
Right now, the appellants are in custody since
24.07.2022 and in the meantime, more than three and
half years have elapsed. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstance and taking into account the circumstance
under which the deceased was done to death and
keeping in view the other circumstances on record in
entirety, this Court without expressing any opinion on
merit considers it proper to admit each of the appellants
to bail, but subject to certain conditions.
5. Hence, these two CRLAs stand allowed and the
impugned orders are, hereby, quashed/set aside.
Consequently, the appellants namely Prakash Majhi @
Prakash Kumar Majhi, Sanikirtan Karta @ Denu @
Dendu, Bhakta Sa @ Bhatlu Sa @ Bhaktabandhu, Mishra
Rout @ Luhura @ Kamara and Sesadev @ Sheshadeb
Sahu @ Second Teli (In CRLA No.197 of 2025) and
Sukash Majhi (In CRLA No.348 of 2025) are directed to
be released on bail on such terms and conditions as
deem fit and proper by the learned Court in seisin over
the matter with following conditions:-
(i) the appellants shall not contact the
informant or his family members in any
manner at any place,
(ii) the appellants shall not threaten, induce,
influence or coerce any of the witnesses
including the family members of the
informant acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade them from disclosing
such facts before the Court,
(iii) the appellants shall not persuade the
villagers or other persons to ostracize the
informant and his family members or take
out any procession against the informant
and his family members,
(iv) the appellants shall report attendance
before the jurisdictional Police Station once
in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in
each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon
for three(03) months from the actual date
of release from the custody.
6. The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall
not detain the appellant unnecessarily after recording his
attendance beyond the time as stipulated. The learned
Sessions Judge, who is Special Judge in the impugned
orders has passed orders in two separate case number
vide ST Case No.162 of 2022 & Special GR Case No.162
of 2022, but there should be uniform number, unless the
accused concerned is/are accused in original and split up
case. This Court, therefore, advises the learned Special
Judge to see and verify the same. Further, the case
under atrocity act is to be dealt by Special Judge, but
one of the impugned order is passed in the capacity of
Sessions Judge which is erroneous.
7. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per
Rules. A soft copy of the order be transmitted to the
concerned Court and Jail for information.
Judge
Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
