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
12 paragraphs · 310 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is an accused in C.T. Case No.251 of 2018 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Reamal, arising out of Kundheigola P.S Case No.124 of 2018 for commission of the alleged offence under Section 392 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deogarh by order dated 27.01.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner has been remanded in the case at hand on 1.7.2019 because of criminal proclivity and charge sheet has been filed on 23.4.2020.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner in the case at hand has not been identified in the T.I Parade and no seizure has been effected from the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner may be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer in view of criminal antecedent of the Petitioner.
Considering the basis of implication, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.
Additionally, it is directed that one of the family members of the Petitioner shall execute the P.R bond in addition to the sureties in terms of the order of the learned Court in seisin and he shall appear before the jurisdictional police station twice every week on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.
The BLAPL thus stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
…………………………