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
14 paragraphs · 355 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.415 of 2023 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, arising out of Dhanupali P.S. Case No.68 of 2023 for commission of the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of her application for bail U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, by order dated 04.07.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 8.6.2023 and as charge sheet has been filed on 18.06.2023 and keeping in view the nature of allegation, his further continuance in custody is not warranted.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on the release of the co-accused Sarat Charan Khura by order dated 11.10.2023 in BLAPL No.9057 of 2023 seeks release, inter alia, on the ground of parity.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the Petitioner is not similarly placed.
To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the State relies on the statement of Saraswati Barik, C.W.9 and submits that the Petitioner along with Gajanan Nayak and Bimal Nayak are the assailants. And, referring to the same, it is submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
It is the submission of the learned counsel that this is a case of exaggeration inasmuch as the present Petitioner admittedly was not named accused. Hence, no credence can be attached to the said statement.
Evidentiary value of the statement of C.W 9 is to be narrated during trial and any observation would prejudice the trial.
Considering the nature of allegation qua the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is not similarly placed with the co-accused who has since been released on bail. Therefore, the bail application does not merit consideration.
Accordingly, BLAPL stands rejected.
Leave is granted to the Petitioner to renew her prayer after examination of the material witnesses.
……………………..