The court granted bail to the petitioner in a criminal appeal under Section 439 Cr.P.C., citing parity as co-accused had been released. Despite no T.I. parade identification, the court held it is a fit case for bail with a bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.
Bail granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
12BLAPL No.4.132016 of 2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner i
n connection with Koraput P.S. Case No. 6 of 2014 corresponding to C.T. case No.116 of 2014 pe
nding in the Court of learned Addl.Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Koraput for offences puni
shable under sections 147/148/427/452/ 363/385/364-A/395/506/ 507/149 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 25(a) of Arms Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, K
oraput which was rejected on 22.12.2015 .
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.
1.2014 and in the meantime, after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted
under sections 147/148/427/452/ 363/385/364-A/395/506/507/149 of Indian Penal Code and Sectio
n 25-(a) of Arms Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. He further submits that the
statements of the two witnesses namely Sukanta Satpathy and Chinmaya Parida, who are the rel
evant witnesses of the prosecution indicate that the accused persons were calling each other
by names and on the basis of such statements, charge sheet was submitted against the petition
er. He further contended that in absence of T.I. Parade identification, those materials are
not sufficient to file charge sheet against the petitioner. He further submits that the co-
accused persons who are identically situated have already been released on bail by this Cour
t in BLAPL No. 6900 of 2015, BLAPL No. 6916 of 2015 and BLAPL No. 7065 of 2015 and therefore
taking into
account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application of
the petitioner may be favourably considered on the ground of parity and equity.
Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and does not dispute that th
ere is no T.I. parade identification and that the case of the petitioner is similar to the co-
accused persons who have already been released on bail.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the
nature of accusation against the petitioner, period of detention of the petitioner in judicia
l custody and release of the co-accused persons on bail, I am of the opinion that it is a fit
case for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bo
nd of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount
to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and cond
itions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.
The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
S.K.Sahoo, J.
2
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for bail considering parity with co-accused already released.
Whether lack of T.I. parade identification precludes the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Petitioner
State
S.K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court