Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

BLAPL/1145/2018 on 17 May, 2018

Author: S. K. Sahoo

Bench: S. K. Sahoo

                                    BLAPL No.1145 of 2018




04. 17.05.2018         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
                 counsel for the State.
                       This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in
                 connection with G.R. Case No.477 of 2017 arising out of
                 Aska P.S. Case No.231 of 2017 pending in the Court of
                 learned J.M.F.C., Aska for offences punishable under
                 sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
                 sections 25(1-B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.
                       The petitioner moved an application for bail before
                 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aska which was rejected
                 on 02.02.2018.
                       Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
                 petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.11.2017 and he has
                 been charge sheeted under sections 302/120-B/34 of the
                 Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-B)(a)/27 of the Arms
                 Act. He further submitted that co-accused namely Santosh
                 Dash has already been released on bail by this Court in
                 BLAPL No.9610 of 2017 vide order dated 17.04.2018 copy
                 of which is filed and taken on record. It is further
                 contended that the first information report was lodged on
                 07.11.2017 by one Babita Palai who is the widow of
                 deceased Pratap Chandra Palai and in the first information
                 report, she claimed herself to be an eye witness to the
                 occurrence and named three persons namely, Rabi Nayak,
                 Silu Palai and Sahi Palai to have participated in the killing of
                 the deceased while he was travelling in a bus. In addition to
                 that she has implicated one Satya Narayan Swain with
                 whom there was political rivalry of the deceased. It is
                             2




      contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
      similar statement has been made by the informant before
      police which was recorded on the very same day but when
      her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she
      did not claim herself as an eye witness to the occurrence
      but implicated the petitioner along with other accused
      persons in the conspiracy of killing the deceased. It is
      further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
      that there is no clinching material that the petitioner
      conspired with the co-accused persons in the killing of the
      deceased and there is also no material to show that the
      petitioner was informing about the movement of the
skb
      deceased to the assailants and on suspicion, the petitioner
      has been falsely entangled in the case and therefore, he is
      entitled to be released on bail.
            Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
      produced the case diary and opposed the prayer for bail
      and placed the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Babita Palai who is
      the wife of the deceased and the informant in the case as
      well as the first information report and her 161 Cr.P.C.
      statement. He also placed the statement of one Panchu
      Swain. Learned counsel for the State however does not
      dispute that the petitioner is similarly situated like the co-
      accused Santosh Dash who has been enlarged on bail.
            Considering the submissions made by the learned
      counsels for the respective parties, the nature of accusation
      against the petitioner, the fact that the informant has
      changed her version from time to time and has not
                       3




implicated the petitioner either in the F.I.R. or in the 161
Cr.P.C. statement but implicated him as the conspirator for
the first time in her statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. and absence of any clinching material relating to
the conspiracy of the petitioner with the co-accused
persons to commit the crime and also release of the co-
accused on bail as well as taking into account the period of
detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined
to release the petitioner on bail.
      Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty
thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the
matter with further terms and conditions as the learned
Court may deem just and proper.
      Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.
      Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
                                            .......................
                                            S. K. Sahoo, J.

4 5