High CourtsSingle Bench

Raghunath Behera vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 30 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 OHC CK 0160

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Satapathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 395, 506
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1510 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

16 paragraphs · 674 words

G. Satapathy, J

1.

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

2.

This is an application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 2134 of 2022 arising out of Khurda Model P.S. Case No.700 of 2022 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda for commission of offences punishable under Sections 395/307/506 of the IPC, on the allegation of snatching away one motor cycle from the informant by assaulting him.

3.

In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. J.Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although FIR has been lodged against the unknown persons, but no T.I. parade has been conducted to identify the suspect, rather the police has falsely implicated the present petitioner by showing recovery of the motor cycle from the possession of the petitioner which is untrue. It is further submitted that the present petitioner having detained in custody since 30.12.2022 and no criminal antecedent has been reported against him, but in the meanwhile, charge sheet has already been submitted in this case. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, Mr. S.R.Roul, learned ASC, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the petitioner and he inter alia submits that the recovery of motor cycle of the informant from the present petitioner itself makes out a primafacie case against the petitioner for commission of dacoity along with others. On these submissions, learned ASC prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. On being asked, the learned ASC fairly clarifies that no T.I. parade has been conducted in this case and no criminal antecedent is reported against the petitioner.

5.

After having considered the rival submissions made and taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against the petitioner and keeping in view the nature and strength of supporting materials available on record and taking into account the fact that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons, but no T.I. parade has been conducted to identify any of the suspects and regard being had to the pretrial detention of the petitioner since 30.12.2022 with submission of charge sheet and taking into account the other circumstance on record in entirety including absence of any criminal antecedent against the petitioner, this Court admits the petitioner to grant bail.

6.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;

(ii) the petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with;

(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case and

(iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on Sunday in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner for any offence in future on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail..

7.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

8.

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

………………………………….