High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajendra Rout @kasi vs State Of Orissa

Orissa High Court · Decided on 2 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 OHC CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Mohapatra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294, 307, 323, 324, 341
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4025 Of 2024
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

15 paragraphs · 541 words

A.K. Mohapatra, J

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

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.

3.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Capital P.S. Case No.332 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. No.891 of 2023, pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294, 307 & 34 of the IPC.

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is aged about 20 years. Further referring to the allegation made in the FIR, the injured sustained injury simple in nature, therefore the case, under Section 307 is not made out. Learned counsel for the Petitioner belongs to locality there is no chance of absconding. Although, he has some criminal antecedents, the Petitioner undertakes to strictly abide by any and all conditions imposed by this Court in the event he has granted bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the informant submitted an affidavit before this Court. He contended that he has no objection to release of the Petitioner on bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature. He also contended that the investigation is still on and the Petitioner has several antecedents, therefore, the released of the Petitioner was delayed in conclusion of this case. Learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioner in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, further taking into consideration the age of the Petitioner, and the period of custodial detention, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to following conditions:-

i) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail;

ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever,

iii) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each date without fail.

iv) he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a week for one month, thereafter, once in a fortnight for two months, thereafter, once in a month till conclusion of the trial preferably on 'Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M to 1.00 PM.

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

8.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of..

.……………………………