Allowed

Chuntia@Gouranga Patra v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC15 Jul 2017BLAPL/3529/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to a murder accused currently in custody. The court noted co-accused were on bail, investigation completed, and found no material suggesting the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner be released on bail in the S.T. No.239 of 2015 (318 of 2016) on such terms and conditions as the Court in seisin deems just and proper.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner being in custody in S.T. No.239 of 2015 (318 of 2016), arising out of Bh ograi P.S. Case No.166 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishab le under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It appears that the petitioner along with others said to have taken the deceased from h is house and thereafter did him to death. Two of the co-accused persons, namely, Gourahari Pat ra and Kalia Patra have already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, is not in dispute. However, the petitioner was absconding and later on apprehended and therea fter his prayer for bail, as such, was rejected by the Court below taking into consideration t he materials on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation reveals that Gourahari P atra and Benga Jena called the deceased from his home and thereafter the deceased was done to death. Gourahari Patra and Benga Jena are already on bail. No doubt, some of the witnesses hav e stated that the petitioner had taken the deceased from his home, but the complaint, which wa s registered as an F.I.R. on the direction of the Court, was lodged in this case three months after the occurrence. Investigation in this case has been completed and charge-sheet has alrea dy been filed. In such premises, he submits to release the petitioner on bail, more so when th ere is nothing on record to suggest that he shall abscond or tamper with the prosecution evide nce, if released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State, however, opposes the prayer for bail. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of supportive materials appearing against the petitioner in support of t he charge, circumstances in which the offences alleged to have been committed, the factum of s ubstantial progress of investigation and hardly any material being there to suggest that the p etitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence if released on bail, I am of the view that the petitioner in this case deserves to be released on bail. Hence, the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper.

Chuntia@Gouranga Patra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chuntia@Gouranga Patra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarapanch,Anara Gram Panchayat Vs Collector,Keonjhar

Sitaram Rohidas Vs State

Prabhu Charan Jena Vs Anil Ku.Yadab

Raju Harijan Vs State of Orissa

Chagala Naik Vs State of Orissa

Seta@Satyaban Pradhan Vs State of Orissa