High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH C IGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 6901 of 2024 BLA BikashNaik State of Odisha CORAM: ….. Vs. ….. Mr.ParthaSarathiNayak, Petitioner Pet ak, Advocate Opp. Party ohapatra, ASC Mr.S.S. Mohap JUSTICE STICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 31.08.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 02. 1. This applic application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has be has been filed by the petitioner in c ner in connection Chhendipada P.S. Case No. No. 591 of 2022 corresponding to ding to G.R. Case No. 1122 of 2022 pending in ng in the court of learned J.M.F.C., .F.C., Chhendipada where charge sheet dated dated 24.06.2023 has been filed ag iled against the petitioner and co-accused Tab d Tabu Khan for commission of of of offence under Section 394 of IPC read with with Sections 25 and 27 of Arms A rms Act., keeping the investigation open. 2. This applic application has been listed before me as BLAPL LAPL No. 973 of 2024filed by Tab y Tabu Khan had been dismissed by me. Liber iberty had been granted to the co the co-accused to move for bail afresh if there w here was delay in completion of tria on of trial, as he was stated to be in custody since since 12.04.2023. The co-accused T used Tabu Khan has filed BLAPL No. 6908 of 2 08 of 2024, which is listed today. day. In view of the report received from from the learned J.M.F.C., Chhend hhendipada, wherein it has been stated that char t charge has been framed in the case he case and one prosecution witness has been ex en examined who is the complainan plainant and the case is posted to 09.09.2024 f 2024 for hearing, prayer for bail of of co-accused Tabu Khan, who has been i been identified in the T.I. parade ha has been rejected granting him liberty to m to move for bail afresh after exam examination of the witness who has identified ntified him in the trial, if there is un e is undue delay in completion of the trial. 3. The prosec prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.11.202 .11.2022 at about 3.20 p.m. while t hile the informant Santosh Kumar Sahu along along with Ashok Kumar Sahu were u were proceeding on a motor cycle for deposit epositing cash of Rs.1,12,060/- of of Saralia petrol pump in S.B.I. Bank, Kos , Kosala Branch, two unknown per n persons came in a bike and detailed them at em at the point of gun and Bhujali. ujali. They gave kick blows to their vehicle for le for which both of them fell down down. The two assailants snatched away the cas the cash bag from them. 4. During inv ng investigation the present petitioner and the d the co-accused Tabu Khan had b had been put to T.I. parade. Co-accused Tabu Tabu Khan was identified in the in the T.I. paradeby witness Ashok Kumar S mar Sahu, while neither the infor informant nor Ashok Kumar Sahucould i uld identify the petitioner. The T. he T.I. parade report has been produced by lear
Legal Reasoning
y learned counsel tioner. for the petitioner. 5. The praye prayer for bail of the petitioner has been been rejected on 26.06.2024 by the by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angu , Angul observing that though the pe the petitioner has not been identified in the T.I. he T.I. parade but his complicity in ity in the case cannot be ruled out as he confe confessed before the police that he that he had committed the robbery along with with co-accused Tabu Khan. It i t is stated in the rejection order that the p the petitioner is involved in 34 ca 34 cases in different police stations of Angul, ngul, Dhenkanal, Khordha and Bou d Boudh districts for the offences in similar natu ar nature. 6. Mr. P.S. N P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner s ioner submits that the petitioner wa ner was arrested in connection with Talcher alcher P.S. Case No.827 of 2022 d 022 dated 15.12.2022 and has been remanded in ded in the present case since 12.04.2 12.04.2023. But as per the report of the learned earned trial court, only one witness itness has been examined out of nine witnesses esses till date. He further submits t mits that as per the police report received in ed in the present case, the petition etitioner has 16 criminal antecedents. He subm submits that the petitioner has bee as been released on bail in all the cases. He He also submits that only because ecause he has a number of antecedents, his pra is prayer for bail should not be reje be rejected. He relied on the decision of the ap the apex Court in the case of Maula aulanaMohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. .P. and others, reported in (2012) 012) 2 SCC 382in support of such submissions issions. 7. In the said said case, the Supreme Court while dealin dealing with an application for ca for cancellation of bail has held as follows:- “6. It is not in dispute and highlighted tha “6. nd respondent is a sitting Member of Parliam second res several criminal cases. It is also not in disput facing seve f the cases ended in acquittal for want of p most of the ses or pending trial. As observed by the High C witnesses o on the basis of criminal antecedents, the cla merely on ond respondent cannot be rejected. In other w the second he duty of the Court to find out the role o it is the d d in the case in which he has been charged accused in circumstances such as possibility of fleeing other circu he jurisdiction of the Court etc.” from the ju that the arliament spute that of proper igh Court, e claim of er words, le of the rged and ing away 8. The Suprem Supreme Court has also taken note of the fact e fact that while granting bail the il the High Court has imposed several conditio nditions for strict adherence and d and did not interfere with the order of the H the High Court granting bail. 9. Mr. S.S. S.S. Mohpatra, learned Additional Standin tanding Counsel opposes the praye prayer for bail stating that even though the pet the petitioner may not have been id een identified in T.I. parade but on a stateme tatement recorded under Section 27 on 27 of the Evidence Act, there has been reco n recovery of two toy guns, one Ch ne Chapad, five bombs and cash of Rs.2,000/ ,000/- which have been kept in a ba in a bag and concealed in a bush. He also sub submits that in view of number o ber of criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he ner, he should not be released on d on bail, as there is chance of his absco absconding and committing simila similar offence if he is released on bail. 10. Considerin idering the nature of allegations against the pe the petitioner, his non-identification ication in the T.I. parade and his period of dete f detention, I am inclined to allow allow his prayer for bail. 11. The petitio petitioner- BikashNaik shall be released on b on bail on such terms and conditio itions as may be fixed by the learned trial co rial court in seisin over the matter atter after verifying that the petitioner has o has only sixteen criminal antecede tecedents and has been granted bail in all t all these cases, including the follo following conditions;- (i) He w He will not indulge in any criminal activity w ivity while on bail. (ii) He w He will not threaten or try to influence prosecu rosecution witnesses w esses while on bail. (iii) He w rmant. He will not go near the house of the informant (iv) He w He will report before the I.I.C., Chhendipada dipada Police Station twi twice a week on every Monday and Friday riday between 4.00 p.m. to p.m. to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial. (v) He He will remain present on each date fixed f ixed for trial, subject to a ct to any order passed by the learned trial cou al court under Section 317 on 317 Cr.P.C. 12. Violation o ation of any condition will entail in cancellation o lation of bail. 13. The BLAPL
Decision
BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 14. A copy of py of this order be supplied to Mr. S.S. Mohapa ohapatra, learned Additional Stand Standing counsel for onward transmission to ion to the I.I.C., Chhendipada Poli a Police Station. Ashok (SavitriRatho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT ORISSA Date: 04-Sep-2024 19:42:54