Allowed

Rabin Kishan@Sukra v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC1 Mar 2019BLAPL/2054/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the petitioner accused under IPC sections 376-D and 302/34 to be released on bail, citing lack of direct evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence, despite the State's argument about call details.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount.

Rabin Kishan@Sukra Vs State of Orissa — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

BLAPL No. 2054 of 2018

¶2

01.03.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶3

This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in connection with Brahamanitarang P.S.Case No.89 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 288 of 2017 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C.(Rural), Rourkela for alleged commission of offence under sections 376-D, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned 2^nd Addl.Sessions Judge, Rourkela vide order dated 07.02.2019.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 31.05.2017 and he has been charge-sheeted under sections 376-D, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and only basing on the seizure of the Tiffin box, which is stated to be of the deceased, from the house of the petitioner, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the case and in absence of any clinching material, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

¶6

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Call Detailed Report (CDR) of the mobile phone of the deceased indicates that she had frequent calls on the date of occurrence i.e. on 13.05.2017 with the co-accused Nabin Lakra. It further reveals that on the very day the petitioner had also contacted with the co-accused Nabin Lakra on various occasions.

¶7

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, nature of accusation against the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence, nature of circumstantial evidence available on record and taking into account the period of detention in jail custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶8

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

¶9

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶10

PKSahoo

¶11

…………………..…… S.K.Sahoo,J.

Rabin Kishan@Sukra v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabin Kishan@Sukra 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

Bhabani Prasad Sahu Vs Monalisa Priya Darasini

Ranjit Senapati Vs Laxmipriya Dalai

Sudarshan@Dikhit@Dixit Vs Sagarika Dash

Dhiren Behera@Dhiren Kumar Behera Vs State of Orissa

Ajambar Kairi Vs State of Orissa

Umesh Majhi Vs State of Orissa