CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Banamali Sahu And Another vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 14 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 OHC CK 0092

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Satapathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 147, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 506
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 323 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

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

10 paragraphs · 345 words

G. Satapathy, J

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Baunsuni P.S. Case No. 48 of 2004 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 70 of 2018 pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Boudh for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 147/323/324/326/307/506/149 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of the deceased Niranjan Sahoo along with co-accused persons in the year 2014.

3.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. B. Karna, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are in custody since 2015 and the trial in this case is yet to be concluded and, therefore, the Petitioners may kindly be granted bail.

4.

On the other hand, Mrs. S.Sahoo, learned ASC, by drawing attention of the Court to another case in Baunsuni P.S. Case No. 99 of 2015, submits that the Petitioners are also involved in another case of Sec. 302 of IPC and, therefore, the Petitioners should not be granted bail.

5.

After having considered the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the Petitioners and keeping in view the commission of offence in the year 2004 and the apprehension of the Petitioners in the year 2018 i.e. after a gap of 14 years and there being another criminal case against the Petitioners for offence U/S. 302 of IPC and last but not the least, co-accused having convicted in this case earlier in the trial of the main case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioners’ stands rejected. However, taking into consideration the submission and delay in trial, the learned trial Court is requested to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months hence positively.

6.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

7.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

……………………………….