SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 890

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
The State of Orissa – Appellant
Versus
Mahimananda Mishra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(Criminal) No. 5440/2017)
WITH
Rajkishor Swain – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa and another – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1176 OF 2018 (Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.6006/2017)
Decided On : 18-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail should be in conformity with principles laid down by Supreme Court.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – High Court not taking into account relevant necessary factors while granting bail – High Court not granting bail in accordance with the basic principles governing the grant of bail – High Court had to see whether a prima facie case has been made out against the respondent – Bail cancelled. (Para 12, 15)

       (2014) 16 SCC 508; (2010) 14 SCC 496; (2018) 12 SCC 129 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent was charged with offences under section 302 and 120B IPC for murder of his business rival.

       High Court granted bail.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court failed to take into consideration relevant factors while grating bail.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

2. The two instant appeals have been preferred by the State of Orissa and the defacto informant in FIR No. 180/2016, registered at Paradeep Police Station in Orissa State against the order dated 16.05.2017 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, by which an application for bail filed by the respondent herein in connection with the aforementioned first information has been allowed.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief, as seen from the first information report and the other connected material, is that on 26.10.2016 at about 09:00 a.m. while the deceased Mahendra Swain was heading to his office in his vehicle accompanied by the driver and his security guard, two unknown assailants hurled bombs on the vehicle, and when the inmates of the vehicle tried to escape, they opened indiscriminate firing on the deceased, leading to his death. According to the first information, the murder was committed at the behest of certain people including the respondent herein namely Mahimananda Mishra. The incident was mainly on account of business rivalry between the company of the deceased and the company of the respondent. The deceased was the Branch Manager of Seaways Shipping and Logistics Limited, Paradeep Branch. The respondent/accused is having a company, by name, Orissa Stevedores Limited. It has been alleged that the respondent had given death threats to the deceased directly and through the brother of the deceased.

4. During the course of investigation, the police found that the respondent went away to Thailand travelling via Chennai, Delhi and Nepal, before he could be arrested. Only after a Look Out Circular was issued, he was traced to Thailand and was deported therefrom to India, after which he was arrested.

5. During the course of investigation, the police have recovered certain weapons as well as the motorcycle used for commission of the murder. According to the State, the investigation records so far, prima facie, reveal that the respondent had paid certain amount of money as advance amount for commission of the murder. The State also relies upon a letter written by the deceased to the Inspector, Paradeep Police Station, stating that he fears for his life and the life of his family, inasmuch as the respondent may make an attempt to take their life. According to the State, the said letter may be treated as a dying declaration of the deceased.

6. The police have filed a charge sheet against the respondent and others. However, four accused are absconding. Further investigation is being proceeded with with the permission of the Court.

7. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the State as well as the defacto complainant, while taking us through the material on record, submit that the respondent is the kingpin of the conspiracy to murder the deceased and the murder has taken place as per his directions and plan. The preliminary charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 25(1)(B) and 27 of the Arms Act, as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. They further brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent, being a powerful and rich person, may go to any extent to influence the witnesses by intimidating them. The very fact that he discreetly went outside India to avoid arrest would, prima facie, reveal that he is a person who can take the law into his hands. He may even abscond in the future, which may delay the process of justice. According to them, the witnesses are already frightened and consequently may not go before the Court to depose against the accused, in which event justice may suffer.

Per contra, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused argued in support of the judgment of the High Court. He contended that though the respondent was released on bail in May 2018, absolutely no allegations are forthcoming









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top