AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 158 wordsB. P. Routray, J
This is an application under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. for bail and the offences alleged are under Secs.147/148/342/363/121/121-A/124-A/302/149, I.P.C., Secs.25/27 of the Arms Act, Secs.16(1)(a)/18/ 20 of UAP Act and Sec.17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Heard Mr. J.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Ms. S. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the State-Opposite Party.
It is submitted by Mr. J.K. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners that though in the meantime 12 witnesses have been examined, but none of them have supported the prosecution case.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Ms. Mishra that still many more vital witnesses are yet to be examined.
Having heard both the parties and considering the nature of allegations as well as the statements of the witnesses, I am not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
The BLAPL is dismissed.