Orissa High Court
Supi @ Pravati Das vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 3 July, 2023
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 1221 of 2023
Supi @ Pravati Das .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Dalai, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
03.07.2023 Order No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. case No. 154 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimapara arising out Astaranga P.S. Case No. 177 of 2021, for alleged commission of offence under section- 341/294/323/324/307/506/302/354/34 of the IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 09.01.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the material witness Kanak Das has since been examined in the meanwhile and relying on the same it is submitted by the Petitioner further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted.
5. It is apt to note here referring to the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Kanak Das (C.W. 11), this Court had rejected the bail application of co- accused Aliva Das by order dated 13.01.2023 in BLAPL No. 11044 of 2022.
Page 1 of 26. This Court perused the Statement of Kanak Das examined as P.W. 5.
7. On perusal of the same, this Court is not persuaded to agree with submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no material to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime.
8. It is also further submission of learned Counsel for the State that there are other material witnesses, namely, Sudhakar Behera-C.W. 12 and Bapina Das-C.W.10, who are yet to be examined.
9. It is trite law that during currency of trial, this Court is not supposed to make a microscopic examination of the materials on record. Since, it prejudices both the prosecution as well as the defence.
10. Keeping such salutary principle in mind and since prima facie there are materials to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime, this Court is not inclined to entertain this BLAPL.
11. Accordingly this BLAPL stands rejected.
12. Leave is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of material witnesses.
(V. NARASINGH)
Soumya Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Jul-2023 08:42:15
Page 2 of 2