Allowed

Hakim@Harbhajan Singh v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Dec 2018BLAPL/5071/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court reconsidered the earlier rejected prayer. The Court found that the identifying witness in cross-examination had stated he could identify the accused only in the T.I. parade, casting doubt on the sanctity of the identification. Consequently, the Court released the petitioners on bail. The order is textually flawed, citing the wrong

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount.

Hakim@Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

BLAPL No.5071 of 2018

¶2

07.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶3

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.490 of 2017 arising out of Betnoti P.S. Case No.200 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Baripada for offences punishable under sections 395/379/332/342 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25(1-A) and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶4

The petitioners moved an application for bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Baripada which was rejected on 06.06.2018.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier bail application of the petitioners was rejected in BLAPL No.854 of 2018 vide order dated 09.05.2018 but in the meantime, the informant has been examined in the trial as P.W.4 and he has not supported the prosecution case and in the cross-examination, he specifically stated that he could identify the accused persons in the T.I. parade as their photographs were shown to him by the S.I. as well as before the T.I. parade. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of such statement of the identifying witness, the sanctity of the T.I. parade is lost and therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may be favourably considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners files the certified copy of the deposition which is taken on record.

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioners, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the statement of the informant in the trial Court, I am inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and direct the petitioners to be released on bail.

¶9

Let the petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/(rupees fifty thousand) each with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction for the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.

¶10

Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

…………………..

S. K. Sahoo, J.

sisir

Hakim@Harbhajan Singh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakim@Harbhajan Singh v. State of Odisha

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

Ram Krushna Jena Vs State of Orissa

Birasingh Say Vs State

Biswanath Patra Vs State

Tapan Jena@Tpan Ku.Jena Vs State of Odisha

Hakim@Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Odisha

Banshidhar Giri Vs Sanat Ku.Das