Krishna Chhetri @ Gothe vs State Of Odisha

V. Narasingh, J

1.Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No.144/8 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, arising out of Bondamunda P.S. Case No.105 of 2021, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 341/323/324/307/386/506/34 of IPC read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela by order dated 15.02.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2022 and since charge sheet has been filed on 31.03.2022 and as trial has commenced, his further continuance in custody is unwarranted in fact is punitive.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies on the order dated 03.02.2023 in respect of the co-accused (Dharmendra Singh @ Dharu @ Dharmendra Sharma) passed by this Court in BLAPL No.6375 of 2022 and seeks release inter alia on the ground of parity.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and places on record the threat perception to the informant relying on the FIR in Bandamunda P.S. Case No.101 of 2022, Bandamunda P.S. Case No.50 of 2023 and also in Bandamunda P.S. Case No.92 of 2023.

It is borne out from the record that the petitioner has 9 criminal antecedents.

It is apt to note that this Court while releasing the co-accused has observed thus:-

“The main allegation of shooting at the brother of the informant being directed against co-accused Krushna Chhatri @ Gothe, who is not the petitioner in this case and taking into consideration the other circumstance on record in entirety and further the fact that bail is the rule, but jail is exception, this Court admits the petitioner to bail.”

Considering the nature of allegations, criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the subsequent affidavits which prima facie indicate the threat perception, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage being fully alive to the fact that jail is the exception and bail is the rule. But, such doctrine is not to be extended mechanically bereft of the factual matrix of each case.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

………………………..