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
22 paragraphs · 400 wordsS.K. Panigrahi, J
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners are in custody in connection with Dharmabandha PS Case No.04 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 22 of 2020 pending
before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 302/201 of Indian Penal Code, have
filed this application under Section 439 of CrPC for their release on bail.
The brief fact of the case is that on 12.12.2019 one Rakesh Rout (‘Informant’) of village-Kendubahara appeared at the police station and
presented a written report to the effect that he along with his younger brother Raj Kumar Rout went to work in Raipur and they returned to village on
09.12.2019. He has stated that at about 7.00 P.M., his brother went to the village to enjoy the festival and at that time he was intoxicated and in the
festival he got into a quarrel with the petitioner no.2. Thereafter his brother returned to his house and subsequently left. Further, it is alleged that on
12.12.2019 at about 11.45 A.M, the dead body of his brother was found in a well in floated condition and based upon this report, one U.D.Case was
registered as U.D.Case No.11 dated 12.12.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that based only on the ground of suspicion, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.
Further, admittedly there was no eye witness to the occurrence; however, much after lodging of the F.I.R., one person namely Nemichand Harijan
has stated that he was the eye witness to the occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody since 14.01.2020.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioners.
Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioners, the stringent punishment provided and
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence alleged or not likely to commit any such offence, which
is not possible to record in this case, the prayer for bail is devoid of merit. Hence, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of being dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application..
……………………………………