Allowed

Imil Xalxo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Mar 2019BLAPL/1607/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case where the trial had commenced with eight witnesses examined. Relying on the absence of direct evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence, along with the length of judicial custody, the court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in Brahamanitarang P.S. Case No.122 of 2016 upon furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties.

Imil Xalxo Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

BLAPL No. 1607 of 2019

¶2

25.03.2019

¶3

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

¶4

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with S.T. Case No.131 of 2016 arising out of Brahamanitarang P.S. Case No.122 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela for alleged commission of offencea punishable under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela which was rejected on 02.02.2019.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.06.2016 and charge sheet has been submitted under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that in the meantime trial has already commenced and eight witnesses have been examined so far in the trial Court and no clinching evidence has come out against the petitioner. It is further stated that though one Mariam Barla, the wife of the deceased Milu Barla stated about the extra judicial confession of the petitioner before her as per her statement before police but during trial being examined as P.W.5, she has not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that since there is no direct evidence in this case, therefore, taking into account the nature of circumstantial evidence on record and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application may be favourably considered. He produced the

¶7

¶8

skb

¶9

certified copies of the depositions which are taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State has produced the case diary and submitted that the wife of the petitioner namely Titri Tirkey has also stated about the extra judicial confession and the said witness Titri Tirkey has not been examined in the trial Court and the weapon of offence was seized at the instance of the petitioner under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence and the nature of circumstantial evidence available on record, since nothing has been brought against the petitioner in the trial so far as well as taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶12

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000.00 (rupees twenty thousand) with two solvent sureties each 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the BLAPL is disposed of.

¶14

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

¶15

………………….. S. K. Sahoo, J.

¶16

¶17

Imil Xalxo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imil Xalxo 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

Sujit Naik Vs State of Odisha

Manoranjan Swain@Manu Vs State of Odisha

Niraj Kumar Soni Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Parida Vs State of Odisha

Tapeswar Patel Vs State of Odisha

Sumanta Oram Vs State of Odisha