D. Danda alias Dandapani and Others vs State of Orissa

B.K. Behera, J.—The Petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 891 of 1983 seek their release on bail. While, this application had already been made, four of them, namely, D. Danda alias Dandapani, Saka Raghunath, Desulu Chineys and Desulu Lacheya, made another application for bail in connection with the same case which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 86 of 1984. Both the applications have been heard together.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted before us that regard being bad to the nature of the case and the allegations made against the Petitioners and in the absence of materials indicating as to who had dealt the fatal blows on the person of the deceased which had resulted in his death the Petitioners should now be admitted to bail although earlier they had unsuccessfully moved this Court for their release at the stage of investigation of the case. The learned Government Advocate has opposed the applications and has submitted that after due consideration bail has been refused to the Petitioners by this Court and no new grounds have been made out for admitting them to bail.

The Petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 325, 324, 323, 201, 427, 457 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Of the offences the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence of housebreaking punishable u/s 457 of the Indian Penal Code are non-bailable. The nature and the gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence are some of the factors to be kept in mind while considering an application for bail.

The Petitioners are accused of an offence of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Petitioners it is alleged came armed on July 19, 1983, broke open the house of the deceased dragged him out and assaulted him to death and thereafter the dead body was packed in a gunny bag and thrown into the canal There are a number of eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The Petitioners had earlier moved the Court of Session and this Court for their release on bail. In Criminal Miscellaneous Case No 558 of 1983, this Court by its order dated September 8, 1983, admitted five of the accused persons to ball and bail was refused to the Petitioners who bad been implicated by the eye-witnesses as the assailants of the deceased.

An older with regard to the grant refusal or cancellation of bail is interlocutory in character. Successive bail applications do lie. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P., , has laid down:

...But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another on a later, occasion giving more materials further developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are barred from second consideration at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not overturning an earlier negation....

Earlier, this Court had refused the prayer of the Petitioners to admit them to bail. That was, no doubt at the state of investigation, but the fact that a charge-sheet has now been placed does not improve the position of the Petitioners and this cannot be given weightage in their favour, as urged before us, On the other hand, the placing of a charge-sheet would indicate that the investigating agency has found out materials against the Petitioners to connect them with the commission of the offences. Whether the materials gathered against the Petitioners are to be accepted is a matter to be gone into at the stage of trial. It may not appropriately be said at this stage that there are no materials to connect the Petitioners with the commission of murder. No new or additional grounds have been made out by the Petitioners. There are no additional materials to admit the Petitioners to bail although their application had been rejected by this Court earlier. We see no new developments to take a view different from the one taken by this Court earlier.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to admit the Petitioners to bail. The two applications are rejected and the Miscellaneous Cases stand dismissed.

R.C. Patnaik. J.

I agree.