Chandan Pujari vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The Petitioner is an accused in C.T. Case No.75 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur, arising out of Kodinga P.S. Case No.114 of 2022 for commission of the offence under Sections 341/147/148/447/323/ 307/302/149 IPC.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur, by order dated 29.05.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2022 and as charge sheet has been filed on 31.10.2022 and taking into account the nature of allegation, his further continuance in custody is not warranted.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the allegations against the Petitioner are omnibus in nature and there is no specific overt act attributed to the present Petitioner.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that ex facie the statement of Padlam Pujari (C.W.8) cannot be relied upon since it is the case of exaggeration inasmuch as if the allegation of running over a tractor on the leg of a person is to be believed then the injuries do not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, no credence ought to be given to the injured.

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and it is the submission that by sheer providence the injured did not suffer any major injury. In this context, he relies on the statement of Padlam Pujari (C.W.8), dying declaration of the deceased. And, the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to discovery of the alleged weapon of offence.

It is apt to state here that the charge sheet in the case at hand has been filed, inter alia, under Section 149 of IPC.

From the narration of the case of the prosecution, it is clearly borne out that in a premeditated manner the act has been committed, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Court in seisin while rejecting the bail application of the Petitioner.

Taking into account the dying declaration and the statement of the injured C.W.8, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage.

Leave is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer at a later stage.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.

……………………………..