CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rakesh Choudhury vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 16 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 OHC CK 0110

HON’BLE JUDGES
Savitri Ratho, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 399, 402 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 11231 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

9 paragraphs · 342 words

Savitri Ratho, J

1.

This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed in connection with Barbil P.S. Case No. 244 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 741 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Barbail registered under Sections 399/ 402 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2.

The prosecution allegations in brief against the petitioner are that on 06.09.2023, the Sub Inspector of Barbil Police Station lodged F.I.R. stating that on the same day at about 11.30 P.M. while they were performing patrolling duty, on getting reliable information at about 12.15 A.M. that some persons were conspiring at Damu Hutting Field and preparing to commit dacoity, they reached the spot and found one white colour Nexa Car bearing Registration No. JH-05-CZ-0020 with some persons sitting inside. The present petitioners were apprehended from the car and one country made pistol was seized from the possession of the petitioner no.1- Rakesh Choudhury, two bhujali from the petitioner no.2- Sandeep Singh and petitioner no.3- Biltu Kumar Singh, one packet of chilly powder from accused, Ravi Kumar Ram apart from mobile phones from the possession of the some beer bottles and one paper containing map of the locality.

3.

Mr. V.R. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 07.09.2023 and as substantial part of investigation has over, they may be released on bail. He further submits that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.

4.

Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioners belong to the Jharkhand and the investigation is at the nascent stage for which their prayer for bail may be rejected.

5.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioners at this stage.

6.

The BLAPL is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to move for bail afresh after completion of investigation.

7.

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

.……………………….