CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Pintu Bisoyi vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 27 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 OHC CK 0188

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Narasingh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 302, 341 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25(1A), 27
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1318 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

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

13 paragraphs · 347 words

V. Narasingh, J

1.

Since both the BLAPLs relate to the same P.S. Case (Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.198 of 2022), on the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the informant as well as State, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

The Petitioners are accused in connection with G.R. Case No.195 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Kabisuryanagar, arising out of Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.198 of 2022 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341/302/120-B/34 of IPC and under Section 25(1A) and 27 of the Arms Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of their application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodala, Ganjam, by order dated 09.12.2022 in the aforementioned cases, the present BLAPLs have been filed.

5.

It is stated at the Bar that the present Petitioners are similarly circumstanced with one Sanjay @ Panda Sahu whose bail application has since been rejected by this Court by order dated 03.04.2023 in BLAPL No.437 of 2023.

6.

And, while rejecting the said bail application in Paragraph-6 and 7 thereof mentioned thus;

“6. Perused the statement of the informant-CSW No.1 and one Jilu Bhuyan-CSW No.13 who had travelled in the vehicle along with the deceased and the post-mortem report.

7.

Both CSW No.1 and 13 have detailed the gruesome manner in which deceased was done to death which founds corroboration from the P.M. report.”

7.

Taking note of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain these bail applications at this stage.

8.

It is needless to state here that it shall be open for the Petitioners to renew their prayer before the learned Court in seisin after examination of the materials witnesses, which shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the earlier rejection or the order passed by this Court.

9.

Accordingly, both the BLAPLs stand disposed of.

………………………………