[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ajit Mohanty vs State Of Odisha on 16 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.419 of 2024
Ajit Mohanty .... Appellant(s)
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. Rita Singh, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Mr. Jateswar Naik, AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.03.2026
(Hybrid mode)
05. 1. This is an application for bail moved by the sole appellant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant-petitioner has been convicted under Sections
323/324/326/307/302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand), in default to further undergo R.I. for a period of one
year for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., to undergo R.I.
for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one
thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence
under Section 326/34 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 307/34 of
I.P.C. and the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.T. Case
No.58 of 2016.
4. Three accused persons including the present appellant
were charged for the commission of offences under Sections
341/294/323/324/326/307/302/34 of the I.P.C. and were put to
trial. By the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2024, the learned trial
Court convicted all of them for the offences under Sections
323/324/326/307/302/34 and sentenced them on each count. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the present appellant-Ajit Mohanty has preferred CRLA
No.419 of 2024 whereas the other two accused, namely, Bhagaban
Mohanty and Bhusan Mohanty have separately filed CRLA
No.420 of 2024 and CRLA No.663 of 2024 respectively.
5. Vide order dated 12.03.2025, learned counsel for the State
was directed to obtain instruction regarding the criminal
antecedents of the appellant-petitioner. Pursuant thereto, learned
counsel for the State produced a report received from the I.I.C.,
Pattapur P.S. which indicates that the appellant has one criminal
antecedent. In that regard, a comprehensive affidavit has been filed
by the sister of the appellant on 13.10.2025, inter alia, stating that
while the present appellant was on bail, he has been entangled in
Pattapur P.S. Case No.434 of 2021 for the alleged commission of
offences under Sections 498-A/302/34 of I.P.C. read with Section
4 of the D.P. Act. In the said affidavit, she has stated that the
appellant is the brother-in-law of the deceased in the said case and
that he has already been admitted to bail on that case.
6. Ms. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the present appellant being the elder brother of the
principal accused in Pattapur P.S. Case No.434 of 2021, has been
falsely implicated. That's the reason; the learned trial Court
granted him bail despite allegation of graver offences. She further
taken us to the evidence of the eye witnesses and other witnesses
and pointed out the contradictions in their evidences. She has
submitted that the appellant has already undergone custody for
more six years and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard
in near future. Hence, she seeks for grant of bail.
7. Mr. Jateswar Naik, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
by relying upon the testimony of the eye witnesses namely P.Ws.4
and P.W.15.
8. We have perused the entire evidence led by prosecution.
P.W.4 is one of the eye witnesses. He in his testimony has deposed
that all the three accused persons being armed with Kati, Parsuram
Tangia and lathi attacked his brother. He has further stated that all
of them assaulted his brother, Balaram, causing bleeding injuries
all over his body. He specifically deposed that the accused Bhusan
was holding a Kati, Bhagaban was holding a Parsuram Tangia and
the present appellant, Ajit, was holding a thenga and all of them
jointly assaulted the deceased.
Similarly, P.W.15, another eye witness, has deposed that
Balaram (deceased) was assaulted by the accused persons. He
deposed that Bhusan Mohanty used a kati and Bhagaban used a
tangia and the present appellant, Ajit used thenga to assault
Balaram.
P.W.24 is the I.O. of the case. He in his testimony has
stated as under:-
"25. It is a fact that P.W.15 has not stated to me that he
sustained injury on his left shoulder, head and lost his
right side teeth and right leg for which he was unable to
walk that they attacked him and his brothers over
demand of unpaid money."
9. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.15 ex-facie appears that
they have improvised the narratives in the evidence. P.W.16 is the
postmortem doctor has found as many as thirteen injuries on the
body of the deceased. He has opined that injury Nos.(viii), (ix) and
(x) are possible by successive forcible blows with a hard blunt
object like lathi, rod etc. Therefore, it appears that the lathi blow
has caused injury Nos.(viii), (ix) and (x), which are clearly
attributable to the present appellant. For convenience of ready
reference, injury Nos.(viii), (ix) and (x) are reproduced herein:-
"(viii) Two parallels bruises of size 18 cm x 2 cm and
13 cm x 2 cm respectively present horizontally across
the mid back,
(ix) Another parallel bruise of size 10 cm x 3 cm
present horizontally across the right upper arm,
(x) Another parallel bruise of size 15 cm x 2 cm over
outer aspect of right upper mid arm."
The doctor (P.W.16) has further opined that the death of
Balaram was caused "due to coma" resulting from injuries to the
head. From the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 15, it is apparent that the
present appellant has used a thenga causing three injuries as
described by P.W.16 but those three injuries were not found on
the head of the deceased-Balaram. The death of the deceased was
caused due to head injury, which is directly attributable to the co-
accused, namely, Bhusan Mohanty and Bhagaban Mohanty, who
were armed with kati and Parsuram tangia respectively. Both the
weapon used by the co-accused persons are dangerous and deadly
weapons whereas the present appellant was armed with a thenga
and caused injuries to the deceased, Balaram which were not fatal
injuries and even not on the vital part of the body of the deceased.
10. Regard being had to the nature of evidence, the period of
custody and the fact that since there is no chance of the appeal
being heard in near future, we are inclined to release the appellant-
petitioner on bail.
11. Let the appellant-Ajit Mohanty be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty
thousand) with one local solvent surety for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, subject to the condition that
while on bail the appellant-petitioner shall not indulge in any
criminal activities in any manner and any other conditions to be
imposed by the learned trial Court deem fit and proper.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of interim bail.
12. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
