[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
(1) Raghunath Maharana vs State Of Odisha on 16 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.1070 of 2025
(1) Raghunath Maharana .... Appellant(s)
(2) Kalu Charan Maharana
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent(s)
Represented by Adv.
Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
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 on behalf of the
appellants.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellants-petitioners have been convicted under
Sections 364-A/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand) each, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one year
for the offence under Sections 364-A/34 of I.P.C. by the learned 3rd
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Trial
No.183 of 2016 arising out of Airfield P.S. Case No.126 of 2015.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim, who is the
son of the informant, was returning from C.V. Raman College
along with his friend, namely Raja Manas Moharana. While they
were on their way, near Pokhariput Petrol Pump, the accused
persons, with the assistance of some other associates, intercepted
their vehicle. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly abducted
the victim at knife point after threatening him, leaving his friend
alone at the spot. Subsequently, the friend of the victim informed
the informant, i.e., the father of the victim, over phone that some
persons had abducted the victim. Upon receiving such information,
the informant immediately disseminated the same to his relatives
in the hope that they might come to the rescue of the victim.
Accordingly, the relatives of the victim assembled and made
earnest efforts to trace him. However, as their attempts proved
futile, the informant lodged the F.I.R. at the concerned police
station. In the meantime, the accused persons allegedly contacted
the brother of the victim over phone and demanded a sum of Rs.10
lakhs as ransom for the release of the victim. Hence, this case.
5. Mr. Katakia, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that after the conviction, the appellants were taken into custody
and their custody is being continued. The present application has
been moved seeking suspension of sentence. Mr. Katakia, learned
counsel for the appellants has argued that there was a financial
dealing between P.W.4 and the appellant No.1-Raghunath
Maharana. Since P.W.4 was not returning the due amount, the
evidence reveals that the accused persons have forcibly attempted
to extract the said amount, which cannot be treated to be ransom as
construed by the learned trial Court to attract the offence under
Section 364-A of I.P.C. Therefore, the entire judgment is premised
on the wrong appreciation of evidence and the law applicable in
that regard.
6. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Katakia, learned
counsel for the appellants by placing reliance upon paragraph-12
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shaik Ahmed vrs. State of Telangana reported in (2021) 9 SCC
59, submits that the essential ingredients required to attract the
offence under Section 364-A of I.P.C. are not satisfied in the
present case, even if the prosecution version is taken at its face
value. For the sake of ready reference, paragraph-12 of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"12. We may now look into Section 364-A to find
out as to what ingredients the section itself
contemplate for the offence. When we paraphrase
Section 364-A following is deciphered:
(i) "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or
keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping
or abduction"
(ii) "and threatens to cause death or hurt to such
person, or by his conduct gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that such person may be
put to death or hurt,
(iii) or causes hurt or death to such person in
order to compel the Government or any foreign
State or international inter-governmental
organisation or any other person to do or abstain
from doing any act or to pay a ransom"
(iv) "shall be punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to
fine."
The first essential condition as incorporated in
Section 364-A is "whoever kidnaps or abducts any
person or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping or abduction". The second condition
begins with conjunction "and". The second
condition has also two parts i.e. (a) threatens to
cause death or hurt to such person or (b) by his
conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension
that such person may be put to death or hurt.
Either part of above condition, if fulfilled, shall
fulfil the second condition for offence. The third
condition begins with the word "or" i.e. or causes
hurt or death to such person in order to compel
the Government or any foreign State or
international inter-governmental organisation or
any other person to do or abstain from doing any
act or to pay a ransom. Third condition begins
with the words "or causes hurt or death to such
person in order to compel the Government or any
foreign State to do or abstain from doing any act
or to pay a ransom". Section 364-A contains a
heading "Kidnapping for ransom, etc." The
kidnapping by a person to demand ransom is fully
covered by Section 364-A."
7. Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State has vehemently opposed the bail plea made by the
appellants on the ground that there are two eye witnesses those
who have deposed against the appellants and their testimony stood
corroborated with the documentary evidence in the form of
different exhibits.
8. P.W.4 is the victim in the present case. He in his
deposition has stated as under:-
"1. I know the informant Bairagi Barik, who is my
father. The occurrence took place on
dtd.01.06.2015. On the relevant period I was
working as Auditor of B.Panda & co at Kalpana
Square, Bhubaneswar. On the day of occurrence
while I along with my friend Raja Manas Ranjan
Maharana were returning to our respective house
by bike after completion of Audit at C.V.Raman
College, near the Pokhariput Pertol Pump at
Kargil Road, accused Raghunath Moharana along
with his brother Kalu Charana Moharana
intercepted our motor cycle (the witness identified
the accused Raghunath Moharana correctly).
Thereafter they had taken me by their bike at the
point of bhujali They kept me inside a house at
Dumduma Area for whole night and assaulted me.
02. On the next day morning both had taken me
towards Jatni, Harirajpur and threatened me.
Accused Raghunath Moharana demanded to my
family member over phone for giving him Rs.7
lakhs else they would kill me."
The said witness (P.W.4) in paragraph-26 of his cross-
examination has stated as under:-
"26. It is not a fact that I had taken Rs.5 lakhs
from the accused Raghunath Moharana as friendly
loan; and that as he demanded the aforesaid
money to me I had issued two number of post
dated cheque bearing number 852443 amounting
Rs.3 lakh and 50 thousand and post dated cheque
bearing number 852444 amounting Rs. 1 lakh and
50 thousand to the accused persons; and that as
one of the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured by
the bank; and that as the accused Raghunath
Moharana demanded the aforesaid loan amount
from me, I foisted this false case against the
accused persons; and that the accused persons
have never kidnapped me; and that they had never
assaulted me; and that they never demanded
money worth of Rs.5 lakhs to my family member.
This witness has not attributed any overt act in specific
terms against the appellant No.2- Kalu Charana Moharana. He has
also failed to identify the appellant No.2. To the Court question he
answered as under:-
"To court
Question: Can you identify Kalu Charana
Moharana in the event of his production before
you?
Answer: Yes.
(Court instructed the witness to have a glance
around the length and breadth of the court hall
and to answer whether Kalu Charana Moharan
was present but after thoroughly witnessing the
court hall, the witness answered that Kalu
Charana Moharana is not present inside the court
hall)."
9. P.W.5 is the eye witness to the occurrence. He has deposed
as under:-
"02. On 01.06.2015, I was working as Auditor in
the B Panda & Company. The victim was also
working with me during that period. On the said
day at about 4 PM to 5 PM, I along with the
victim Rabindra Barik returned from the
C.V.Raman Engineering College, Bhubaneswar
after audit inspection in the bike of Rabindra.
Near petrol pump, kargil road, Pokhariput the
accused Raghunath Maharana stopped our bike by
keeping his bike in front of our bike. He asked the
victim to come with him and also told him to
intimate his brother to give him the money.
Accordingly the victim telephoned his elder
brother. His elder brother also talked with
Raghunath Maharana. At that time, two other
persons reached there in a bike. One of them sat
on the bike of Rabindra and told him to sit on his
bike. Raghunath and his associates threatened me
to leave when I opposed to them."
This witness has also not attributed any specific overt act
against the appellant No.2.
P.W.7 is the I.O. of the case, who in his cross-examination
has stated as under:-
"13. It is a fact that the accused was stated before
me during his examination that he had landed some
money to the victim. Rabindra Kumar Barik. My
investigation docs not reveal if at all any cheque
was issued by Rabindra Kumar Barik to the
accused Raghunath Moharana against that amount
of money."
10. The appellant No.1-Raghunath Maharana examined
himself as D.W.1. He in his testimony has deposed that Biswanath
Barik had taken some money from him and he had issued two
numbers of cheques to liquidate his liability. Biswanath Barik sent
Rabindra Barik to his house to seek some more time for making
good the payment towards the cheque. He has requested Rabindra
to call his brother and all of them went to the police station. The
police instructed him to put signature in a compromise so as to
settle the dispute. But, surprisingly, the police after making him
wait till evening forwarded him to Court by implicating him in the
false case. He has also exhibited the cheques issued by Biswanath
Barik being Ext.A-DW1 and Ext.B-DW1. Ext.A/1-DW1 and
Ext.B/1-DW1 are the signatures of Biswanath Barik.
11. From the evidence of the victim (P.W.4), eye witness
(P.W.5) and the I.O. (P.W.7) besides the evidence of D.W.1 makes
it clear that there was some financial dealing between the accused
persons and P.W.4. Biswanath Barik, the brother of P.W.4 had
issued two cheques, which appears to have not been honoured.
That dispute led to the abduction of P.W.4. Therefore, the
argument of Mr. Katakia, learned counsel for the appellants at this
stage appears to be convincing for the purpose of grant of bail to
the extent that the ingredient of Section 364-A of I.P.C. is not
satisfied in the present case even if the evidence of the prosecution
is taken at its face value. For the purpose of deciding the bail
application, we need not venture into appreciating the evidence in
detail.
12. 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
appellants-petitioners on bail.
13. At this stage, Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned counsel for the
State submits that the appellants may harm the informant and other
witnesses due to the prevailing hostility owing to the financial
transaction. Therefore, she prays for stringent condition to be
imposed.
14. Let the appellants be released on bail in the aforesaid case
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) each
with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, subject to the further
condition that while on bail the appellants-petitioners shall not
indulge in any criminal activities in any manner. To alley the
apprehension of learned counsel for the State, it is directed that the
appellants shall report to the concerned Police Station being
physically present on last Sunday of every month between 10.00
A.M. to 1.00 P.M. and any other conditions to be imposed by the
learned trial Court if deem fit and proper.
Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of interim bail.
15. 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
Order No.
06. 1. This is an application for stay of realization of fine.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, let there be stay of realization of fine amount
imposed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar in Crl. Trial No.183 of 2016 on the appellant-
petitioner pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.
4. The I.A. is disposed of.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Sibo Sankar Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
