High CourtsSingle Bench

G. Bangaru vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 3 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 OHC CK 0035

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Panigrahi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294, 307, 324, 332, 336, 337 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 37
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8193 Of 2021
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

15 paragraphs · 465 words

S.K. Panigrahi, J

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. Biraja Prasanna Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner  and  Mr.  L.  Samantaray, learned  Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3.

The Petitioner being in custody in Rayagada P.S. Case No.43 of 2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.30 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayagada, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 294/ 324/ 336/ 337/ 307/ 332/ 34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25/ 37 of the Arms Act, has filed this petition for his release on bail.

4.

The allegation of the prosecution is that informant, namely, Rigan Kindo, the S.I. of Police lodged an F.I.R. on 25.11.2019 before the Rayagada P.S. alleging therein that on the same day at about 2.30 A.M., he received a reliable information that accused Siva and his gangs were concealed nearby jungle of Nathama. Immediately, he along with his other police personnel went to the spot to verify the information. When they reached at the spot, the present Petitioner along with other accused persons tried to assault the police officials by firearms and pelted stone on the police officials, when they tried to apprehend them in connection with another case. It reveals from the statements of the accused H. Shiva including present Petitioner that they were involved in another case of kidnapping of a boy and ransom and apprehending arrest, they concealed in the forest.

5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely entangled in this case. He further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2019. The trial has not yet been commenced nor there is likelihood of completion of trial in near future.

6.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the Petitioner.

7.

Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials available on record, further keeping in view the surrounding circumstances including the period of detention of the Petitioner in custody without trial being commenced and there is a bleak chance of completion of trial in near future, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail with such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin over the matter with further conditions that:-

i. the petitioner shall appear before the learned  trial  court  on  each  date  of posting of the case;

ii. he shall not indulge in similar activities in future and

iii. he shall not tamper the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

Violation  of  any  of  the  conditions  shall  entail cancellation of the bail.

8.

Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.

9.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

.............................................