Mitu Pradhan Vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J

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

This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Purusottam P.S. Case No. 437 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.421 of 2023 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Purushottampur for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/506/307/34 of IPC/25(6)/27(1) of the Arms Act, on the allegation of attempting to commit murder of the Informant.

Mr. B. Pujari, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present FIR has been only designed to implicate the present Petitioner to keep him behind the Bar, but none of the ingredients of the offence is disclosed in the FIR and he, accordingly, prays to allow the bail application of the Petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. J.Samantaray, learned counsel appearing for the Informant submits that in this case, the Petitioner is also involved in murder of two brothers of the Informant; one in Odisha and another in Gujrat and when the Petitioner was released on interim bail by the High Court of Gujrat, he had utilized the interim bail period to terrorize the Informant by his act alleged in this case because the Informant is a prime witness to the aforesaid two murder cases of his own brother. Mr. Samantaray, accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the Petitioner.

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned ASC by drawing attention of the Court to the cases in Kataragaon PS (Surat, Gujrat) Case No. 155 of 2016 for offence U/S. 302 of IPC and Kodala PS Case No. 86 of 2012 for offence U/S. 302 of IPC & some other allied offences, submits that the Petitioner is not only a habitual offender, but is involved in heinous and serious offences and, therefore, release of the Petitioner on bail would have adverse impact on the society. It is also submitted by learned ASC that the Petitioner while being on interim bail as per the order of Gujrat High Court has committed the offence in this case and, therefore, he is not at all entitled to bail. At this stage, Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in both the cases, the Petitioner is on bail, but the Informant has designed this FIR only to keep the Petitioner in confinement and in case the Petitioner is involved in other cases, the concerned Police may take action against him.

After having considered the rival submissions and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence as alleged against the Petitioner, so also the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in two cases of murder, one in the State of Orissa and another in the State of Gujrat and taking into account such conduct of the Petitioner and also the materials placed on record in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. In view of the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is observed that if the case is ripened for trial, the learned trial Court may proceed with the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.

.……………………………