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
18 paragraphs · 542 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioners are accused in connection with S.T. Case No.17 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anandapur, arising out of Ramachandrapur P.S. No.285 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 302/34 of IPC.
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.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anandapur by order dated 14.12.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
This is the third journey of the Petitioners to this Court. Earlier the Petitioners had moved this Court in BLAPL No.12443 of 2022 which was rejected by this court by order dated 03.02.2023 since the same was during the currency of investigation. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed BLAPL No.4815 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by order dated 11.12.2023.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioners are in custody since 26.11.2022 on the allegation that they conjointly caused death of one Agala @ Jasobanta Jena.
It is submitted that one Bagala Majhi and Hemanta Kumar Majhi in their statements before the Police recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C. had attributed overt act to the Petitioners which lead to the death of said Agala @ Jasobanta Jena. Both the witnesses Bagala Majhi and Hemanta Kumar Majhi have been examined as P.Ws.5 and 13 respectively. Copies of the depositions of the said witnesses are on record and they have resiled.
It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that P.Ws.1 and 2 who are witnesses to the recovery U/s.27 of the Evidence Act have also not supported the prosecution.
Referring to the same, it submitted that since there is no other material to connect the Petitioners with the alleged offence, their further continuance in custody is not warranted since the trial is likely to linger as the prosecution has cited 24 witnesses to drive home the charge.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that scrutiny of the statements on record at this stage is not permissible.
Taking into account the nature of materials qua the Petitioners on record, this Court directs the Petitioners to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
Additionally, it is directed that Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every week on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.
Further, it is directed that the Petitioners shall not in any way try to intimidate the informant and/or his family members.
It shall be open to the prosecution as well as informant to seek variance of this order, in the event there is any threat perception.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
....……………………………