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
12 paragraphs · 357 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.57 of 2022, pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Balliguda arising out of Chakapada P.S. Case No.15 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC.
Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge, Balliguda by order dated 22.11.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
This is the second journey of the Petitioner to this Court. This Court by order dated 20.12.2022 in BLAPL No.8324 of 2022 while allowing the bail application of the co-accused Siba Behera rejected the bail application of the present Petitioner. While enlarging the co-accused Siba Behera on bail, this Court had referred to the statement of one of the witnesses Lalima Behera and her husband Ramakanta cited as C.Ws.2 and 3 respectively.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the meanwhile several witnesses including those two referred to hereinabove have been examined and looking at the tenor of the statement of the witnesses and cross-examination of Lalima Behera who has been examined as P.W.1, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. And, he draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph-8 of the cross-examination of Lalima Behera.
Learned counsel for the State refutes such submission and asserts that during currency of trial it is not open for this Court to make a clinical examination of the evidence on record.
This Court finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the State.
On perusal of the statement of P.W.1 this Court is not persuade to hold that there is no prima facie case made out against the Petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application.
Accordingly, BLAPL stands rejected.
………………………….…......