Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33702 (ORI)

SUJIT KUMAR NAIK v. STATE OF ODISHA

BLAPL/4917/2025 · 2025-05-16

S K Panigrahi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4507 of 2025 Tuna Bhutia ..…... Petitioner Mr. A.S.Paul, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha ………. Opposite Party Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 16.05.2025 Order No. 01. F.I.R No. Dated Police Station Case No. and Courts’ Name Sections 65 04.02.2025 Motonga G.R Case No.80 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge-Cum- JMFC(Cog.Taking ), Dhenkanal U/s 310(2) of BNS read with Section 25(1- A)/25(6)/27(1) of the Arms Act 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Motonga P.S. Case No.65 of 2025, corresponding to G.R Case No.80 of 2025, p. 2 pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge-Cum- JMFC(Cog.Taking), Dhenkanal, and registered for the alleged commission of offences under Section 310(2) of BNS read with Section 25(1-A)/25(6)/27(1) of the Arms Act, has filed this petition seeking release on bail. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 03.02.2025 at about 9.40 pm, while the informant along with his friend Satyajit Sahoo was returning to their house by a Bullet after closing their shop at Kantabania Bazar, on the way at the railway underpass near Meramandali Bazar, 7 to 8 unknown persons suddenly came with covering face by masks in an unnumbered white coloured Bolero vehicle and restrained their vehicle. After getting down from their Bolero, they put one big knife on the neck of the informant and his friend and asked them to deliver the money and other valuable articles in their possession. Hence, being scared of their offensive acts, the Informant handed over cash of Rs.1,70,000/- and his mobile hand set and his friend handed over cash of Rs.50,000/- and his two nos. of mobile handsets to those culprits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 04.02.2025. He submits that nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the Petitioner and he has been entangled in the case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. Further, the charge- p. 3 sheet has already been filed in the present case. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the bail application of the petitioner may be favourbaly considered and he may be allowed to go on bail in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer of the Petitioner. 6. Taking into account the submissions made and on going through the materials on record; further keeping in view all other surrounding circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be granted bail in the aforesaid case by the learned Court in seisin over the matter, subject to stringent terms and conditions. The conditions are as follows:- i. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, before the local Police Station; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the local Police Station on every alternate Monday in between 10 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till the completion of the trial; iii. The petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal offence while on bail and appear before the trial court on each date of posting of the matter; p. 4 iv. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner; v. The petitioner, after the onset of monsoon, shall plant 100 saplings of local varieties, such as mango, neem, tamarind, etc., around his village on government land, community land, or private land in the possession of the petitioner or his family members. In the event that suitable land is unavailable, the Revenue Authority shall assist in identifying land for the plantation. Violation of any of the above conditions shall lead to the cancellation of the bail. 7. The I.I.C. of the concerned police station, in coordination with the local Forest Officer, shall monitor whether the Petitioner has planted the saplings as required. 8. It is further directed that the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the local police station, confirming that the saplings have been planted and that the petitioner will maintain them for a period of two years. 9. The District Nursery/District Forest Officer (D.F.O.) shall extend assistance to the petitioner by supplying the necessary saplings. Page 5 of 5 10. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali