CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ganesh Dash @ Lipu vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 25 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 OHC CK 0165

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Satapathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 394, 450 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(a)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 6943 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 · 380 words

G. Satapathy, J

1.

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

2.

This is an application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with G.R. Case No.1835 of 2022 arising out of Aska P.S. Case No.908 of 2022 pending in the file of learned Civil Judge Jr. Divn.-cum-J.M.F.C., Aska, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 450/394/307 of the IPC and Section 25(a) of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing dacoity along with co-accused persons.

3.

Mr. S.S. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that although there appears some allegation against the petitioner, but the petitioner having detained in custody for a substantial period, may kindly be granted bail. He further submits that eleven witnesses including the I.O. have already been examined in this case and therefore, the apprehension of tampering of evidence or influencing the witnesses by the petitioner is bleak and thus, there would not be any impediment to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, Mrs. S.R. Sahoo, learned ASC, however, submits that trial is at fag end and the case is likely to be disposed of and therefore, it would not be proper to consider the bail application of the petitioner, especially when he was identified in the T.I. parade as well as in the Court.

5.

After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the stage of the case which appears to this Court that the case is likely to be disposed of very soon and this Court, therefore, does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. However, the learned trial Court is requested to conclude the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months of receipt of copy of this order and in the event the trial is not concluded as aforesaid, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court forthwith.

6.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

7.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

………………………………