Allowed

Ajay Kumar Prasad v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Apr 2019BLAPL/1143/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder and culpable homicide case. Considering the petitioner's long custodial detention, the progress of trial, and hostile testimony of a prosecution witness, the Court granted bail on deposit of Rs.50,000 with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two local solvent sureties for the like amount.

Ajay Kumar Prasad Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

BLAPL No.1143 of 2019

¶2

19.04.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶3

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.44 of 2015 arising out of Paradeep Lock P.S. Case No.90 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kujang, Jagatsinghpur for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 394/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur which was rejected on 17.01.2019.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Ajay Kumar Prasad is in judicial custody since 13.11.2014 and his earlier bail application was rejected on 01.08.2017 in BLAPL No.3794 of 2017 as he was identified in the test identification parade and the learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within a period of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the meantime, trial has commenced and as many as fifteen witnesses have been examined and the star witnesses on behalf of the prosecution are P.W.3 and P.W.4 who identified the petitioner in the test identification parade. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that P.W.3 though identified the petitioner in the T.I. parade as well as in the Court but he has been declared hostile as he failed to identify another co-accused and in the cross examination

¶6

¶7

he has specifically stated that he had not seen to whom the deceased had taken to Puri in his Scorpio vehicle. He further submitted that P.W.4, the other identifying witness has specifically stated that he along with the informant and the IIC had proceeded to Ranchi. Ranchi police asked the accused persons during that time when they were in police custody and he had seen the accused persons when they came out from Ranchi police station and he had seen the accused persons also during their conversation with Baya Sahoo at Paradeep Gada Stand and he had seen twice the accused persons before he identified them inside the jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he had seen the accused persons beforehand prior to the holding of the T.I. parade and keeping in view the progress of trial, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the copy of the deposition which is taken on record.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and placed the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and further submitted that the petitioner is a man of Bihar and once he is released on bail, it would be difficult to ensure his attendance at the time of trial.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the evidence of two identifying witnesses i.e., P.W.3 and P.W.4 and progress of the trial, I am inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail and direct the

¶11

¶12

petitioner to be released on bail.

¶13

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper.

¶14

¶15

Accordingly, the BLAPL is allowed.

¶16

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶17

………………….. S. K. Sahoo, J.

¶18

Ajay Kumar Prasad v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Prasad 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

Sabitarani Nayak Vs State

Raju Gouda Vs State of Orissa

Prasanna Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Braja Kishore Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Kiran Das@Kalia Vs State of Orissa

Papina@Bikash Mallick Vs State of Orissa