Petitioner challenged refusal of bail in case for dacoity and murder invoking pandemic conditions and bail of co-accused. Court rejected plea, noting petitioner was specifically named in FIR unlike co-accused granted bail.
Prayer for bail rejected; Bail Application No.10675 of 2019 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI
BLAPL NO.10675 OF 2019
Duryodhana Thati @ Dirju.
…….. Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha …….. Opp.party
O R D E R
2018, arising out of C.T. Case No.132 of 2018 corresponding to Boudh P.S. Case No.48 of 2018, has filed this petition for his release on bail as his prayer for bail has been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2019. The petitioner has been indicted in the aforesaid case for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 396 of I.P.C.
2. In the wake of the Pandemic Covid-19, the case
was taken up through Video Conferencing and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for
2
the State.
3. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh twice, but both the bail applications were withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner has again approached the learned Sessions Judge, Boudh for his release on bail, but the same having been refused, the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this bail application.
4. It appears that the petitioner along with the coaccused persons has been charge-sheeted under Section 396 of I.P.C. on the accusation that he along with the co-accused persons committed murder of Hatakishore Pradhan and assaulted the Informant and other companions of Hatakishore in committing dacoity of cash and bullocks belong to them.
5. In support of the present successive bail plea of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, inter-alia, that the materials collected in course of investigation do not
3
make out any prima-facie case against the petitioner to indict him for the alleged offence and no T.I. parade has been conducted to establish the identities of the real culprits. According to him, grant of bail in favour of two co-accused persons by this Court and the substantial period of detention of the petitioner in custody furnish a new circumstance to consider his present successive bail plea.
6. Per contra, the learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner can not be treated at par with the co-accused persons, namely, Biresh Naik and Motu alias Jagneswar Danayak who have been granted bail, inasmuch as the present petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. He seeks for rejection of the prayer for bail on the ground of the gravity of the offence and the character of evidence available on record as against the petitioner.
7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of identity is of no relevance, inasmuch as the Informant who was a
4
victim of the incident, has categorically named the petitioner in the F.I.R. Having gone through the orders of bail passed by this Court in favour of the two co-accused persons named above in BLAPL Nos.3686 of 2018 and 4461 of 2018, I find them to be differently situated than the present petitioner. As observed in those orders, the only incriminating material against Motu alias Jagneswar Danayak was that he was talking with the co-accused persons at the relevant time, and admittedly, the name of the co-accused – Biresh Naik does not figure in the F.I.R. Taking note of the nature and gravity of the indictment and severity of punishment provided therefor, the period of under trial detention of the petitioner does not afford a good ground for bail.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected and the BLAPL stands disposed of being dismissed.
As lock-down period is continuing for COVID19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s
5
website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
………………… S.Pujahari, J.
MRS
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who was specifically named in the FIR for the commission of dacoity and murder.
Whether the grant of bail to co-accused who were not specifically named in the FIR is a ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Duryodhana Thati @ Dirju
State of Odisha
S.Puchari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
