The State Of Orissa vs Mahimananda Mishra

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 2 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 respondent­accused 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 3 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.

10. Since the investigation is yet to complete and trial is yet to begin, it  would  not be proper for us to dwell upon the subject 6 matter in detail at this stage, lest it may prejudice the case of either   of   the   parties   during   trial.     However,  prima   facie,   it   is brought on record by the State that there was severe animosity between the deceased and the respondent, as is evidenced by the fact   that   at   one   point   an   intervention   by   the   district administration   was   necessitated   to   keep   the   peace.     The statement of the family members of the deceased discloses that the respondent had given death threats to the deceased.  A letter of the deceased was seized from the house of the deceased during the course of investigation which discloses that the deceased was under the apprehension of his death by the respondent due to business rivalry. The respondent fled to Thailand to avoid arrest and was arrested only on deportation pursuant to the issuance of a Look Out Circular, which probabilises the apprehension of the police   regarding   future   attempts   of   the   accused   to   escape.     A recovery   of   weapon   has   been   made   pursuant   to   the   statement made by the co­accused.   The respondent has serious criminal antecedents,   having   five   criminal   cases   registered   against   him, out of which two cases involve charges under Section 307, IPC 7 and three under the Explosive Substances Act.  However, during the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the Court that in one matter, the respondent has been acquitted. Since the respondent  is   a  powerful  and influential  person  in  his locality, the   investigating   officer   apprehends   that   he   may   influence   the witnesses by intimidating them and if the respondent continues to   remain   at   large,   his   presence   may   influence   the   trial   by creating fear in the minds of the witnesses.

15. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned supra, the impugned 10 judgment of the High Court granting an order of bail in favour of the respondent herein is liable to be set aside.   Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.  The respondent Mahimananda Mishra, S/o   Late   Rabindranath   Mishra,   R/o   Odia   Bazar,   P.S.   Dargha Bazar, District Cuttack (Orissa), be taken into custody forthwith.

16. The instant appeals are accordingly allowed.