JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Order No
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 10607 of 2023 K. Surya Rao @ K. Surya Prakash Rao @ Korada Surya Rao …. Petitioner Mr. S. Manohar, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. 06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned
Decision
ORDER 05.01.2024 counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No.409 of 2022 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Koraput, arising out of Koraput Sadar P.S. Case No.84 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 364/397/302/201/34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput by order dated 14.07.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2022 on the allegation of allegedly committing murder of one Amulya Kumar Tripathy. Page 1 of 4 6. It is further submitted with vehemence that there is no material on record to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime save and except his confession. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and since there is gaping holes in the case of the prosecution and there is no progress in trial, Petitioner may be released on bail. 7. This is the third journey of the Petitioner to this Court. Earlier two bail applications of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL Nos.11170 of 2022 and 854 of 2023 were permitted to be withdrawn by orders dated 15.12.2022 and 26.04.2023 respectively. 8. It is submitted that since charge sheet has already been filed on 31.12.2022 and there is no scope for the Petitioner to tamper with the material on record and considering the nature of the prosecution case, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted and in fact is punitive. 9. Per contra, while opposing the prayer for bail the learned counsel for the State relied on the CCTV footage indicating that soon before the deceased went missing, there is material to indicate that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in his bike which was being driver by the accused Petitioner. 10. To fortify his submission that the bike belongs to the deceased, the learned counsel for the State relied on the statement of the family members of the deceased namely, C.W.11- his wife and parents of the deceased C.Ws.12 and 13 respectively. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Praharaj relied on the statement of two seizure witnesses C.Ws.18 and 19 who have proved the seizure of one parking ticket of APRTC parking place Tuni (A.P) and one Key of Pulsar M/C bearing Regd. No.-OD 10 C 6677 which belonged to the deceased, as per C.Ws.11 to 13. Page 2 of 4 11.A. For convenience of ready reference details of the seizure as stated in coloumn-12 serial No.4 of the final form is extracted herein below; of “12. Details properties/Articles/Documents recovered/ seized during investigation and relied upon (separate list can be attached, if necessary) xxx xxx xxx A PS MALKHANA IN HIS HOUSE ON 17.06.2022 AT 11.45 AM ON PRODUCTION BY ACCD 4. PARKING ONE TICKET OF APRTC PARKING PLACE TUNI (A.P) AND ONE KEY OF PULSAR M/C BEARING REGD NO- OD 10 C 6677 PRODUCED BY THE ACCD K SURYA RAO IN HIS HOUSE 12. Learned counsel for the State further relied on the statement of the gold smith who has been cited as an accused and relying on the said statement, it is submitted that the seized gold ring of the deceased was recovered in melted condition from the said co-accused. Such ring was allegedly handed over to him for Rs.15000/- by the Petitioner-accused. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since it is a co-accused statement, no credence can be attached to the same. 13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the State that the Petitioner has several criminal antecedents. So far as antecedents are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the same has been stated in the bail application and relying on the time tested principle and the Page 3 of 4 judgments submits that the same ought not to weigh with the Court while considering alleged complicity of the accused in another offence. 14. 15. There is no cavil about such proposition of law. On a conspectus of the materials on record, taking into account the seizure of the key of motor cycle of the deceased and its parking receipt from the Petitioner and the CCTV footage which is sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner. 16. Hence this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage. 17. Leave is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin at a later stage. 18. Since it is stated that the Petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2022, learned Court in seisin is requested to expedite the trial. 19. Learned counsel for the State is requested to impart necessary instructions to the I.O. to ensure presence of the witnesses on the date fixed. 20. It is needless to state that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of the bail application. They ought not to be construed as this Court expressing any opinion regarding the complicity of the Petitioner. The same has to be adjudicated on the basis of the materials on record independently in the impending trial. 21. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Jan-2024 19:56:12 Santoshi Judge Page 4 of 4