AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J
I have heard Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State
through video conferencing mode.
This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner- Adma Musaki in connection with Kalimela P.S. Case No.01 of
2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 03 of 2020 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Motu, at M.V.79 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C.
The petitioner had moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in BLAPL No.99 of 2020 which was rejected
on 18.06.2020.
The prosecution allegations in brief that on 02.01.2020, while the father of the informant was sleeping in the ladi house (watching shed or threshing
shed on agricultural land), two unknown persons assaulted him with wooden plank and axe and killed him. Hearing his screams, his mother went to the
spot and saw the two culprits but could not identify them. On report of Rama Madkami son of the deceased, FIR was registered against unknown
persons on 03.01.2020. Pitambar Killa and Sahadeb Hantal were arrested on 11.01.2020 on basis of their confession before the police and statement
recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act leading to discovery of weapon of offence. The petitioner was arrested on 08.05.2020 after the
statement of one Irma Madkiami, Rama Madkami and Butu Bagrani was recorded under Section 164 Crl.P.C and the petitioner had confessed his
guilt before the villagers.
Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.05.2020 and in the meantime charge sheet has
been submitted under Section 302 of IPC. He further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and has been implicated subsequently
and co-accused persons namely Pitambar Khilla and Sahadev Hantal who had been named in the FIR have been released on bail by the Court below
and the petitioner stands on the same footing as them. He further submits that the averments in the F.I.R. and statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. are contradictory to each other for which the petitioner should be garnted bail . He also submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of
Malkangiri District which precludes any reasonable apprehension of his absconding from the process of justice, if he is released on bail.
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submitted that the petitioner has made extra judicial
confession before the villagers that he killed Deba Madkami as he was practicing witchcraft and he placed the statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. of Irma Podiami which implicates the petitioner directly and further submitted that that co accused Pitambar Khilla and Sahadev Hantal have
been released on bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C by order dated 10.05.3030 and they have not been chargesheeted and
chargesheet dated 03.09.2020 for commission of offences under Section 302 I.P.C. has been filed only against the petitioner and therefore he stands
on a different footing.
I have gone through the case diary and statement of witness of Irma Podiami recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He implicates the petitioner and has
stated that he had left for Andhra Pradesh due to threats given by the petitioner and returned on 05.05.2020 and disclosed the incident to ward
member Buti Bagrai after which meeting was convened where the petitioner confessed his guilt and police was informed . Chargesheet dated
03.09.2020 has been filed against the petitioner and not against Pitambar Khilla and Sahadev Hantal who had earlier been released on bail under the
provisions of section -167 (2) proviso of the Cr.P.C.The petitioner therefore does not stand on the same footing as them.
Considering the nature of materials available against the petitioner, I do not think this is a fit case to release him on bail at this stage. It is open to the
petitioner to move for bail afresh, in case there is undue delay in trial .
The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed.
Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application.
……………………………….