CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Siva @ Chandan Behera vs State Of Odisha

Orissa High Court · Decided on 22 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 OHC CK 0163

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Narasingh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 201, 302, 364, 449, 506
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1758 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

13 paragraphs · 370 words

V. Narasingh, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2.

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with G.R. Case No.288 of 2022, pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Kabisuryanagar, arising out of Kabisuryanagar P.S. Case No.294 of 2022 for commission of the offence under Sections 449/364/302/201/506/120-B/34 IPC.

3.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kodala, by order dated 30.11.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2022 and as charge sheet has already been filed, his further continuance in custody is not warranted since there is no material to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime.

5.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer relying on the statement of the wife of the deceased informant and also the statements of Mitu Nahak and Chitrasena Padhiary, C.W. 11 and 40 respectively.

6.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the statement of Krushna Chandra Sahu and Gouri Nahak, C.Ws.35 and 36 respectively and submits that in the said statement the overt act has been attributed to Jogendra Dalai and his sons Pravakar Dalai and Silu Dalai who are not the Petitioners before this Court.

7.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the rejection order referring to the said statement it has been observed that the present Petitioner has been named therein which is an error on record.

8.

Taking into account the nature of evidence qua the Petitioner and that the witnesses, C.Ws.35 and 36 named the persons who have allegedly committed the overt act, this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin.

9.

Before releasing, learned Court in seisin is called upon to verify criminal antecedent of the Petitioner. If it comes to the fore that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent, this order shall stand recalled.

10.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

11.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.

……………………………..