Kamal Mallick @ Lalu vs State Of Odisha & Another

G. Satapathy, J

Since these two CRLAs arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

These are the criminal appeals 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”) are directed against the order dated 28.02.2025/05.05.2025 passed in CT(Spl) Case No.29 of 2025 by which the learned District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Jajpur under SC & ST (PA) Act, has refused to release the appellants on bail in connection with Jajpur Sadar PS Case No.37 of 2025, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.126(2)/296/115(2)/109/103/74/ 351(2)/3(5) of BNS r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/2(2)(va) of the Act, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Santanu Das and injuring his father by assaulting them indiscriminately with split wood.

Heard, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 1086 of 2025; Mr.Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 623 of 2025; Mr. Susanta Sekhar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

3.1. In the course of hearing, Mr.Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 623 of 2025 submits that there are two FIRs lodged against the appellants for self-same incident, one after two days of the alleged assault and another one, after six days of the occurrence, but fact remains that the name of the present appellants do not figure out in the first FIR, however, subsequently, the same was mentioned due to influence by others and the deceased having sustained one injury on his person and the present appellants being not responsible in any way for the assault of the deceased or injured, the present appellant may kindly be granted bail.

3.2. In echoing the aforesaid submission, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 1086 of 2025 submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted, but trial is yet to commence, however, the further proceeding in this case has been stayed due to the question regarding validity of the second FIR and the appellant having implicated in this case due to political influence, he may kindly be granted bail.

3.3. On the other hand, Mr. Susanta Sekhar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the informant by drawing attention of the Court to the averments taken in both the FIRs submits that not only the appellants are involved in this case, but also they have mercilessly assaulted the deceased as well as the injured, which is forthcoming from the FIR lodged by the injured and the deceased and the injured are being members of scheduled caste, the appellants have committed the offences and, thereby, the bail applications of the appellants may kindly be rejected.

3.4. Mr. P. Satpathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the further proceeding in this case has been stayed on the application of the appellant-Kamal Mallick @ Lalu and, thereby, he cannot take the benefit of stay of further proceeding in this case, but the injured eye witness has lodged one of the FIRs alleging therein against the appellants for assaulting the deceased and himself and, therefore, a young innocent boy aged about 14 years having lost his life due to assault of the appellants and co-accused, the appellants may not be admitted to bail.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute about lodging of two FIRs, one by the aunt of the deceased and another by the injured, but this Court is right now not on the point of legality of the FIRs. Be that as it may, neither the FIR is a substantive piece of evidence nor is an encyclopedia of facts, but while considering the bail application of an accused of a case like this in which one person has lost his life and another has been assaulted, the Court has to take into consideration some facts such as:- (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence; (ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the Accused; (vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

Applying the aforesaid factors in this case, there appears allegation against the appellants for assaulting the deceased and the injured in the FIR lodged by the injured, but according to the parties, such FIR is the second FIR, however, the averments of the second FIR can be taken into consideration towards evaluating prima facie case in considering the bail applications of the appellants, since any subsequent written report containing signature of maker thereof relating to a criminal case is hit by U/S.181 of BNSS. Further, the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has stated in his report that the injuries found on the brain of the deceased were ante mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt trauma and the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury and its complication thereof. It is also a fact that the further proceeding in this case has been stayed on the application of the appellant-Kamal Mallick @ Lalu as confirmed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellant and he, thereby, cannot claim the benefit of stay of further proceeding in the matter. In the meanwhile, after investigation, preliminary charge-sheet has already been placed against the appellants. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, especially when the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury and its complication and there being allegation against the appellants for assaulting the deceased and his father, this Court does not find any good reason to grant bail to the appellants at this stage.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellants’ stands rejected. Accordingly, both the CRLAs stand dismissed. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.