CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Dillip Kumar Das vs State Of Orissa

Orissa High Court · Decided on 25 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 OHC CK 0220

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Satapathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 380, 457
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 501 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 · 357 words

G. Satapathy, J

1.

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

2.

This is an successive bail application U/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sahidnagar P.S. Case No. 493 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 6329 of 2022 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.(III), Bhubaneswar for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 457/380/34 of the IPC, on the allegation of committing theft from the IMFL shop of the informant and taking away cash of Rs.8,28,000/-.

3.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr.B.Dalai, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that FIR was lodged against unknown persons, but no T.I. parade has been conducted to identify the suspect and in the meanwhile, around two witnesses have already been examined in this case, but the same is not useful for the prosecution and the petitioner having already detained in custody since 19.10.2022 may kindly be granted bail.

4.

On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Roul, learned ASC by drawing attention of the Court to the criminal proclivity of the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a habitual offender, his bail application should not be considered.

5.

After having considered the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the Petitioner and keeping in view 22 numbers of criminal antecedents of similar nature reported against the petitioner and trial having already commenced with examination of two witnesses, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, but request the learned trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Hence, the bail application of the Petitioner stands rejected and learned trial Court is requested to complete the trial as aforesaid. In case the trial is not concluded with aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

6.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

7.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

……………………………..