This court allowed the criminal revision application praying for bail of a juvenile petitioner. The court released him on bail of Rs. 20,000 with conditions, noting the lack of direct evidence and the bail release of co-accused.
Petitioner released on bail of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties.
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.
CRLREV No.151 of 2016
22.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 02.12.2015 by the learned Princ
ipal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur whic
h was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 7
7 of 2015 and the same was also rejected vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is juvenile in conf
lict with law is in custody since 18.09.2015 and he is aged about seventeen years and there ar
e no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the bail application of the petitioner was rejected m
ainly basing on the statement of Kalia Behera as well as the statements of some co-accused per
sons. He further submitted that some of the co-accused persons namely Papu @ Balaram Swain, Su
nil Nayak @ Titu Nayak @ Sultan and Pintu @ Bhimasen Sahu have already been released on bail b
y this Court in BLAPL No.1250 of 2016 and BLAPL No. 4178 of 2016 vide orders dated 06.05.2016
and 13.09.2016 respectively and the petitioner stands on the similar footing. In support of su
ch contention, learned counsel for the petitioner files the copies of the bail orders which ar
e taken on record. He further submits that there is no clinching material against the petition
er and charge sheet has already been submitted under sections 302/120-B/201/34 of the Indian P
enal Code and section 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. He further submits that taking into a
ccount the period of detention of the
petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably consi
dered.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and placed
the statement of Kalia Behera from the lower Court records which was received in this case.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature
of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence on record, the nature of
circumstantial evidence available on record against the petitioner, release of the co-accused
persons on bail as well as taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in j
udicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond o
f Rs.20,000.00 (rupees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the P.M.J.J.B cum- C.J.M., Ganjam, Berhampur with further terms and condit
ions as the learned Court may deem just and proper with further conditions one of the sureties
should be either the father of the petitioner or any close relative of the petitioner that th
e petitioner shall not indulge himself in any criminal activities. Violation of any of the con
ditions imposed by this Court or by the learned Court below shall entail cancellation of the b
ail bond.
Accordingly, the CRLREV is allowed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
S. K. Sahoo, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a juvenile accused of murder associated with arms offence, should be released on bail considering the absence of direct evidence and the release of co-accused on bail.
Petitioner
State
S. K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court