Rajib Dua vs State Of Odisha

S.K. Sahoo, J

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.     Â

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.    Â

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Sason P.S. Case No.123 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2507 of 2020

pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for alleged commission of offences under sections 364-A/394/411/414/109/120B of the Indian

Penal Code read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur vide order dated 13.01.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.07.2021 and the earlier bail application of the petitioner in

BLAPL No.5700 of 2020 was disposed of as withdrawn. He further submits that co-accused Md. Ali @ Raja has been released on bail in BLAPL

No.5513 of 2020 and the petitioner stands on the similar footing and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State was asked to obtain instruction regarding the criminal antecedents against the petitioner and also to verify whether the

petitioner is similarly situated like the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail or not. Today, Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the

State on instruction submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedents. However he submits that the petitioner’s case is distinguishable

from that of the co-accused namely Md. Ali @ Raja on the ground that the petitioner was staying in front of the house of the victim and he took a

house on rent where the plan was hatched out to commit the offence. Learned counsel for the State also placed the statement of the victim namely,

Naresh Kumar Agarwal, in the statement the victim has stated that during course of occurrence, the accused persons were calling each other by their

names and one of the name was Rajiv and the other name was Ali. Admittedly, in this case no test identification parade has been conducted.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is a man from Deheradun, Uttarakhand and once he is enlarged on bail, it would be very

difficult to ensure his attendance at the time of trial.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the release of the

co-accused person on bail and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) with two local solvent sureties

each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further conditions as the learned Court may deem just

and proper with further conditions that the petitioner shall not try to tamper with the evidence in any manner and shall appear before the learned trial

Court on each date when the case would be posted for trial. Violation of any terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available

in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s

Notice No. 4587 dated 25th March 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April 2021.

…………………………