Sk. Attulla vs State Of Odisha

A.K. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioners for regular bail in connection with C.T. Case No.267 of 2024, arising out of Remuna P.S. Case No.66 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Balasore for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections l43/147/148/153-A/ 294/323/325/307/120-B/149

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are in jail custody since 14.04.2024. She further contended that a co-accused, namely Sk. Afrid, who stands similar footing with the Petitioner No.1 and 2, has already been released on bail vide order dated 20.05.2024 passed by this Court in BLAPL No.4853 of 2024. She further contended that the co-accused, who was released on bail, as well as Petitioner No.1 and 2 have not been named in the F.I.R., therefore, they are standing on similar footing. So far Petitioner No.3 is concerned, although he is named in the F.I.R., however, learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Petitioner No.3 is not involved in the present crime. It was also contended that all the Petitioners have two criminal antecedents each. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners be released on bail on any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court which the Petitioners shall abide by while on bail.

Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, opposed the release of the Petitioners on bail on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are serious in nature. He further contended that the investigation is still on, therefore, in the event the Petitioners are released on bail which cause delay in conclusion of the investigation as well as trial. He further contended that the Petitioners are having criminal antecedent. On such ground, it is submitted by the Additional Standing Counsel that the prayer for bail of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful examination of the materials on record and the fact that the one of the co-accused, who stands on similar footing with the Petitioner No.1 and 2, has already been released on bail, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners No.1 and 2 on bail.

Hence, it is directed that the Petitioner No.1 and 2 be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter.

It is open for the Court in seisin over the matter to impose any other conditions as may be deemed just and proper. Violation of any term and condition shall entail cancellation of the bail.

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioners No.1 and 2. In the event the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are having more than two criminal antecedents, then this bail order shall automatically stand revoked.

So far the Petitioner No.3 is concerned, this Court grants liberty to move the trial court afresh. In the event an application for bail is made by the Petitioner No.3, the same shall be considered by the trial court on its own merit.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

……………………………