RANJAN MAHURI v. STATE OF ODISHA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2025-12-24. RANJAN MAHURI v. STATE OF ODISHA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 12330 of 2025 Ranjan Mahuri .. …... Petitioner Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 24. 12. 2025 Order No. 01. F. I. R Dated Police Station Case No. and Sections No. Courts’ Name 75 16. 08. 2022 Kamarda S. T Case No. 376 U/S. 498-A, of 2022 pending in 302, 307, the Court of 325, 326 of learned I. P. C. Additional Sessions Judge, Jaleswar 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The petitioner being in custody in connection with Kamarda P. S. Case No. 75 of 2022, corresponding to S. T Case No. 376 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaleswar, registered for the alleged commission of offence under Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Dec-2025 18:40:08 Section 498-A, 302, 307, 325, 326 of I. P. C.
, has filed this petition for his release on bail. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 16. 8. 2022 at about 2. 45 p. m. one Hemanta Mahuri reported in writing before the O. I. C. , Kamarda P. S. alleging inter alia therein that they solemnized the marriage of Susama Mahuri daughter of Susanta Mahuri with the petitioner as per Hindu Caste and Custom. After her marriage, she was constantly tortured mentally and physically by her husband. On 11. 8. 2022, Susama Mahuri came to her parental house on the occasion of Rakshya Bandhan. The father of the Susama Mahuri did not allow her daughter to go to her in-laws house. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner threatened his father-in-law to kill him in life over telephone. On 16. 8. 2022, the Petitioner attended the house of his father-in-law and asked about his wife Susama Mahuri. Susanta Mahuri told the Petitioner that he will not leave his daughter with him and also told him to leave the place.
Thereafter, the petitioner abused his father-in-law Susanta Mahuri in obscene languages and threatened him with dire consequences. In the meantime, a tussle was happened in between the petitioner and his in-laws members. Then, the petitioner forcibly stabbed a sharp cutting knife in the neck of Susanta Mahuri. While the daughter and wife of Sushanta Mahuri tried to save her Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Dec-2025 18:40:08 father/husband Sushanta Mahuri from the clutch of the petitioner, then the petitioner also assaulted them. Other general allegations are also there. Hence, this case 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 18. 08. 2022.
He further submits that the material witnesses of the case have been examined and on perusal of the deposition it has been seen that no iota of evidence is made available on record to constitute the offences against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. He further submits that out of 22 prosecution witnesses, only 12 witnesses have been examined, and, therefore, the trial is not expected to be complete so soon. He further submits that for such long detention of the Petitioner in custody when the trial is progressing at a snail space and no such step is being taken by the prosecution to expedite the same, further detention of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. 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.
The Petitioner has committed brutal murder of his father-in-law in the presence of other family Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Dec-2025 18:40:08 members by means of a knife. He submits that the witnesses examined so far have well supported the case of the prosecution. In the event of release of the Petitioner on bail, there is every possibility of terrorizing the prosecution witnesses and also flee from justice. With this submission, he prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials as placed, further keeping in view the role said to have been played by this Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the BLAPL is dismissed. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of the order pas per Rules. (Dr.
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Dec-2025 18:40:08
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.