Bibhu @ Prabhudutta Parida & Anr. vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J.

This Criminal Appeal in nature of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 together with amendment Act, 2016 (in short, “the Act”) by the appellants is directed against the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed in CT Case No.209 of 2024 by which the learned Presiding Officer, Spl. Court (SC & ST), Cuttack has refused to grant bail to the appellant in connection with Khuntuni PS Case No.186 of 2024 for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 126(2)/296/117(2)/118(2)/109/103/3(5) of BNS r/w Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)/2(v)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Suryakanta Samal, and injuring Sidhartha Behera & Sanjay Behera, all of them belonging to SC category by abusing them in filthy language, uttering their Caste’s name and assaulting them with pointed and sharp cutting weapon by taking advantage of their Caste.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Sr. counsel, who is being assisted by Mr. Puspamitra Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants submits by referring to the copy of deposition of PWs1 to PW12 that the incident occurred in a procession for immersion of Lord Ganesh, but the witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses have deposed against the Appellants in different manner and some of the witnesses have totally exonerated the Appellants, whereas some of the witnesses have partially implicated, but PW1 has specifically implicated Appellant No.1 for his role in this case, however, the PM report of the deceased reveals one stab injury on his abdomen and some abrasions, but the act of stabbing the deceased is directed against co-accused Deepak Behera and thereby, the evidence of the witnesses being discrepant, cannot be relied upon to refuse bail to the Appellants, more particularly when Appellant No.1 is in custody since 11.09.2024 and Appellant No.2 is in custody since 24.12.2024 being surrendered. Accordingly, on the aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohapatra prays to grant bail to the Appellants.

In opposing such prayer for bail, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. PP by highlighting the evidence of the witnesses submits that not only the witnesses have testified against the Appellants, but also the PM report vindicates the allegation against the Appellants for stabbing the deceased and thereby, the Appellants having been found involved in this case on prima facie material without examination of material witness Manas Lenka, the Criminal Appeal for grant of bail to the Appellants may kindly be rejected.

Mr. Arjun Charan Behera, learned counsel for the Informant by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in CRLA No. 146 of 2025 submits that not only the present Appellants stands on similar footing with that of co-accused Santosh Behera whose bail application has already been rejected, but also there is prima facie material against the Appellants and the incident being preceded by threatening given to the informant party in this case and the deceased having died a homicidal death, the bail application of the Appellants may kindly be rejected.

After having considered the rival submission upon perusal of record, the main allegation of stabbing the deceased and injured Sidhartha Behera appears to be against co-accused Deepak Behera and Santosh Behera. The PM report of the deceased reveals his death to be on account of hemorrhage and shock resulting out of the abdomen injury and according to the Doctor conducting autopsy, the external injury no.(i) which was a stab wound is fatal in ordinary course of nature and rest of the injuries vide injury no.(ii) to (vi) are considered to be non-fatal as per the Doctor, but the allegations against the Appellants are omnibus in nature and no specific allegation appears against the Appellants. Besides, the Appellants are in custody since 11.09.2024 and 24.12.2024 and in the meantime, the material witnesses have already been examined and thereby, there is little chance of tampering of prosecution evidence of material witnesses. Additionally, the Appellants have got inherent right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty at the trial, but securing attendance of the accused at the trial is paramount consideration in granting bail which should not be confused with acquittal of the accused person, inasmuch as granting bail to an accused is temporary release of accused from custody on his assurance to attend the trial by binding himself with surety, who guarantees the presence of accused at the trial. There are other charge sheeted witnesses who are yet to be examined and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. In the aforesaid premises and on consideration of materials placed on record keeping in view the evidence of witnesses so far examined and no material being collected to suggest that the Appellants would abscond or pose threat to the witnesses, if released on bail, this Court without expressing any view on merit considers it proper to admit the Appellants to bail.

Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the Appellants are directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions except cash surety as deems fit and proper by it.

Accordingly, the CRLA stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the concerned Court.