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 · 281 wordsB. P. Routray, J
Heard Mr. A.S. Paul, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. K. Das, learned A.S.C. for the State-Opposite Party.
This is an application under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. for bail and the offences alleged are under Secs.498-A/302/304-B/34, I.P.C. and Sec.4 of the D.P. Act.
It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he is inside custody since19.7.2018 and the trial is yet to complete.
Upon hearing both the parties and going through the depositions of the witnesses as well as post-mortem report, I am not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is rejected.
However, considering long period of detention of the Petitioner inside custody and slow progress in trial, it is directed to release the Petitioner on interim bail for a period of three months from the date of his release in connection with Kundheigola P.S. Case No.104/2018 corresponding to S.T. Case No.92/2018 on such terms and conditions to be fixed by learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh as he deems just and proper including the condition that the Petitioner shall furnish two sureties (with proper identity proof) out of which one shall be his relative and that, he shall not be involved in any other offence while on bail and shall attend the trial court on each date fixed.
It is made clear that the Petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on or before 22nd May, 2023, failing which learned trial court shall take appropriate steps including issuance of NBW of arrest to apprehend him.
The BLAPL is disposed of.
An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
……………………………..