The Single Judge rejected the petitioner's bail application in a murder case. Relying on the strength of circumstantial evidence and the risk of tampering, the court denied bail but directed the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
Bail application dismissed; direction to trial court to conclude trial expeditiously.
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.
BLAPL No.4475 of 2015
5. 11.8.2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A
ddl. Standing Counsel.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons who
were admittedly sleeping near the deceased at the time of the incident have stated nothing im
plicating this petitioner in causing death of Dhaneswar and Nirupama whose authorship is ascri
bed to the petitioner as per the projected prosecution case. It is further submitted that th
e witnesses who have been later on examined although have stated about circumstances tending t
o implicate the petitioner yet those are highly improbable. In view of above, he urges for gra
nt of bail to this petitioner by further taking into consideration the period of his detention
in custody.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contends that the case rests upon the circumsta
ntial evidence and in support of those circumstances implicating the petitioner, the statement
of witnesses are there on record. Besides the seizure of the call detail records concerning
the telephonic discussion between this petitioner and other co-accused with whom this petition
er had come to the scene of occurrence, the witnesses have seen the petitioner coming to the p
lace entering into the house and returning within the shortest possible time and then also abo
ut the hearing of the gunshot. The other circumstance according to him is the abscondance of t
his petitioner since that time on-words. So he submits that the release of the petitioner woul
d have adverse affect on trial which is progressing as the likelihood of tampering the evidenc
e as also abscondance cannot under the circumstance all together be ruled out.
Considering the submissions and viewing the materials which have surfaced in c
ourse of investigation in implicating the petitioner with the alleged commission of offence un
der Section 302 IPC read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, I am not inclined to release
the petitioner on bail. However, looking at the period of his detention in custody, it is here
by observed that the trial court would do well to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possi
ble.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
D. Dash, J.
Aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a murder case implicating him under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the petitioner's release on bail would adversely affect the ongoing trial by causing evidence tampering or abscondance.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court