IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL No.831 of 2022

Nirakar Sahoo

….

Petitioner

Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

….

Opp. Party

Mr. P.B. Tripathy,

Addl. Standing Counsel

Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate

(for the informant)

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

Order No.

ORDER

06.02.2023

13.

This

matter

is

taken

up

through

Hybrid

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard Mr. Smruti Ranjan Mohanty, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.B. Tripathy,

learned Addl. Standing counsel as well as Mr. S.S.

Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

In support of such contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

the meantime, the case has already been committed

to the Court of Session and now pending before the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamakhyanagar in C.T.

Case No.36 of 2022.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 7

This is an application under section 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection

with

Tumusingha

P.S.

Case

No.131

of

2021

corresponding to C.T. Case No.36 of 2022 pending in

the

Court

of

learned

Addl.

Sessions

Judge,

Kamakhyanagar for alleged commission of offences

under sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.09.2020

and he has been charge sheeted under sections

302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections

25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that

the occurrence in question took place on 24.09.2021

and the First Information Report was lodged on

25.09.2021 and there are no eye witnesses to the

commission of the murder of the deceased Deepak

Kumar Mohanta and the only material available

against the petitioner is the confessional statement of

the co-accused persons namely, Gargi Badra and Disu

Chatar and petitioner’s own confession before police

and in the meantime, trial has commenced and out of

twenty charge sheet witnesses, twelve witnesses have

already been examined and they have stated nothing

against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has filed the deposition copies of the

witnesses and submitted that in view of the nature of

// 3 //

Page 3 of 7

evidence available on record against the petitioner

and at the stage, when there is no chance of

tampering with the evidence, the bail application may

be favourably considered.

Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for

the informant, on the other hand, opposed the prayer

for bail and submitted that the petitioner and the

deceased were the business partners and they were

doing business in stone query and the petitioner was

supposed to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (thirty five

lakhs) to the deceased and the two of the co-accused

persons Gargi Badra and Disu Chatar were the

labourers under the petitioner and the materials

available on record, particularly the confessional

statement of the co-accused before police at the time

of leading to discovery was that both the co-accused

fired gunshot at the deceased at the instance of the

petitioner. He further submitted that the C.D.R. of the

mobile phone of the petitioner indicates that he had

contacted with the deceased on 23.09.2021 and also

on 24.09.2021. He also filed a written note of

submission wherein it is indicated that since after

grant of interim bail by this Court, the petitioner

misutilised his liberty and threatened the petitioner on

gun point, for which the informant lodged an FIR and

therefore, he should not be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the informant placed reliance