Panda@narayan@trilochan Sahu vs State Of Odisha

A.K. Mohapatra, J

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

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No.78 of 2024, arising out of Polasara P.S. Case No.07 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. Case No.28 of 2010(A), pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kodala, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147/148/302/109/149/34 of IPC.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially arrested in connection with the present case on 29.01.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner was released on bail. He further contended that since the date of his release on bail the Petitioner was appearing before the trial court, however, in the year 2024, the Petitioner fail to appear before the trial court due to communication gap with the conducting lawyer. Accordingly, an N.B.W. was issued on 15.02.2024 and on execution of the N.B.W., the Petitioner was taken to custody and he was languishing in jail custody since 18.03.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the default to appear before the trial court neither intentional nor deliberate rather due to communication gap with the conducting counsel. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event he is released on bail.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioner on bail on the ground that the Petitioner had already defaulted in appearing before the trial court, therefore, there is every possibility that he again default in the event he is released on bail, which would cause delay in conclusion of the trial which has already delayed by now. On such ground, it is submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the materials on record and further taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was initially released on bail and he was appearing before the trial court, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on imposition of stringent conditions.

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter. The release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to the following conditions:-

I) he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case;

II) he shall not take unnecessary adjournments of the case in the trial court; and

III) he shall appear before the local police station once in a month, preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M., till conclusion of trial.

Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application..

……………………………