AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these two bail applications 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 bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Chandrasekharpur PS Case No.528 of 2025 corresponding to CT Case No.76 of 2026 (CT Case No.1437 of 2025) pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Khordha at Bhubaneswar, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.140(3)/140 (4)/142/115(2)/103(1)/117(3)/61(2)(a) of BNS.
The facts given rise to the allegation against the petitioners are that on 04.08.2025, the petitioner-Mamta Patua @ Mamata claiming herself to be having an NGO called the Physio of the Rehabilitation Centre at Niladribihar and got one person identifying him to be “Rohit” admitted there for treatment, but the said person was later found to be not Rohit, but Mahesh Chandra Pal, which was in fact ascertained by the Rehabilitation Centre, but when the petitioner Mamata did not pay the medical bills after initially paying an amount of Rs.20,000/-, the Rehabilitation Centre contacted her, but she did not pay and thereafter, the nurse of Rehabilitation Centre ascertained from the said person Mahesh Chandra Pal, who later died that he is not Rohit and his name is Mahesh Chandra Pal and he had secured the loan of Rs.4 Lakhs from one Pradeep, but when he failed to repay the loan amount to Pradeep, he (Mahesh) was kidnapped by the accused persons and was confined for last four years. Further, the deceased Mahesh disclosed that the accused persons had tortured him during this period and due to assault of co-accused Pradeep, he had sustained injury on his spinal cord and head and he was initially admitted at Jamshedpur, but then shifted to South Point Hospital, Cuttack and, thereafter, he was admitted in the said Rehabilitation Centre.
After knowing this fact, the Rehabilitation Centre informed the family members of deceased Mahesh and, accordingly, the mother of Mahesh came to the Rehabilitation Centre and shifted him to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar by lodging an FIR against Pradeep Kumar and others, but Mahesh subsequently died at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar while undergoing treatment.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.5600 of 2026 submits that the petitioner-Mamta Patua @ Mamata has no role in the entire episode, but she has been falsely implicated in this case and whatever is the allegation of assault, it is only against the co-accused Pradeep, who is not before this Court and, thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.
Similarly, Mr. Abinash Prakhar, learned proxy counsel appearing virtually on behalf of Mr. Krishna Murari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.5953 of 2026 also submits that the petitioner-Jitendra Kumar Singh is the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was shifted from Jamshedpur to Cuttack, but he has no role either in torture or assault of the deceased and, thereby, the petitioner may kindly be granted bail.
On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Patra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by placing the facts in the charge-sheet submits that the deceased had disclosed before the complainant that he was tortured by the petitioners and others and the deceased died because he was beaten brutally by the petitioners and others for extortion of money and, therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegation against the petitioners, but the deceased died while undergoing treatment and his Post Mortem Report discloses that the cause of death of the deceased is sepsis as a delayed complication of prolonged bed rest due to injuries sustained by him. The PM report also discloses number of external injuries on the person of the deceased, which were more than six months old. Right now, the trial is going on and the deceased had disclosed before his mother about the alleged act committed by the petitioners. The allegation also reveals about illegal confinement of a person for around four years and torture to him for extortion. In the aforesaid sequence of events and taking into account the nature and gravity of the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioners vis-‡-vis the accusations sought to be brought against them and regard being had to the materials placed on record and trial being going on with examination of the informant and other materials witnesses still awaited, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to any of the petitioners at this stage.
Hence, these two bail applications of the petitioners namely Mamta Patua @ Mamata (In BLAPL No.5600 of 2026) and Jitendra Kumar Singh (In BLAPL No.5953 of 2026) stand rejected. Accordingly, these BLAPLs stand disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court for reference.