The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL NO.9326 of 2022 Golu @ Raffique Ansari @ Rafik Ansari …. Petitioner Mr.A.P.Bose, Advocate, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- CORAM: ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Party Mr.P.C.Das, A.S.C. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 16.03.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr.A.P.Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.P.C.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel. 3. Perused the Bail Application, Case diary as well as the statements of the witnesses and other relevant papers. 4. The present bail application is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court for grant of regular bail. Earlier bail application bearing BLAPL No.7909 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the learned trial Court to examine the eye witnesses named in the Charge sheet and further to conclude the trial within a period of four months. Furthermore, in the event the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid time, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to move a fresh bail application before the trial court, which shall be considered independently without being influenced by any other factor. 5. After disposal of the earlier bail application, trial could not be // 2 // completed within the stipulated time. Moreover, two of the eye witnesses have been examined in the meantime. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved a fresh bail application before the trial Court. Such bail application has been rejected vide order dated 13.09.2022. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 07.11.2019. In the meantime, although the trial has commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined, however, the trial is unnecessarily being prolonged and there is no likelihood of the trial concluded in near future. Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that two of the witnesses namely, Lipun Sahu and Shyamsundar Bag have already been examined as P.Ws.1 & 4 respectively in the present case. He further contended that they have not supported the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the Petitioner urged before this Court that the further continuation of the Petitioner in custody would be travesty of justice and as such he should be enlarged on bail forthwith. 7. Mr.P.C.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the allegations made against the Petitioner are very serious in nature. He further contended that the present case has been registered for commission of a crime punishable under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Although the learned Additional Standing Counsel did not dispute the fact that two of the eye witnesses have turned hostile, however he also submitted that there are other witnesses to be examined by the prosecution. He further contended that the Petitioner is a harden criminal and is a hired killer and that he operates his crime network not only within the jurisdiction of Brajrajnagar Police Station, but also in other area. As such, there are criminal antecedents // 3 // against the present Petitioner. Mr.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel further contended that as a result of gun shot fired by the accused, one of the A.S.I. was injured in the incident. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further referring to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Vaibhav Sen-v.-The State of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No.1434 of 2019 decided on 30.01.2019 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virupakshappa Gouda & another-v-state of Karnataka reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406 submitted that non- availability of eye witnesses is not the only criteria to be looked into by the court while considering the bail application. He further contended that there are several other criteria and circumstances like where there is any prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the case has committed offence, nature and gravity of the acquisition, severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, danger of accused absconding or fleeing, character behaviour etc. of the accused, likelihood of the offence repeated, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced are several other criteria, which this Court is required to consider at the time of hearing the bail application of the Petitioner. 9. Mr.P.C.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel also contended that it is well settled principle of law that while considering the bail application, the gravity of the offence and allegations against the accused persons is to be taken into consideration. The severity of punishment in case of conviction also plays an important role while deciding to enlarge the accused on bail. He also contended that the trial is progressing smoothly and the same is likely to be concluded in near future. Therefore, the release of the Petitioner at this juncture would adversely affect the progress of the // 4 // trial and further if the Petitioner does not cooperate after his release on bail, then the trial will prolong unnecessarily. Further referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav-v.-State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129, Mr.Das learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that when a person is accused of commission of a crime like murder, the mere fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year, is not a relevant consideration and that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon a careful analysis of the submissions made by them and upon a close scrutiny of the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the present Petitioner are very grave in nature. Furthermore, the conduct of the Petitioner and the criminal antecedents are not clean. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail at this juncture. However, considering the fact that the Petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2019, this Court directs the trial Court to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within a further period of three months from today. 11. Accordingly the BLAPL is disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge