Allowed

Balaram Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC14 Oct 2020BLAPL/2583/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to two petitioners facing charges of murder and other offences. Relying on the absence of a Test Identification Parade and lack of clinching material, the court ordered their release upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 20,000 each with two local solvent sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two local solvent sureties.

Balaram Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

BLAPL No. 2583 of 2020

¶2

1. BALARAM MALLICK

¶3

… 2. RANJIT KUMAR DIGAL

PETITIONERS

-VERSUS-

STATE OF ODISHA

OPP.PARTY

14.10.2020 The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶9

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

¶10

This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with K. Nuagaon P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 26 of 2020 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Balliguda for alleged commission of offences under sections 120-B, 147, 148, 302, 460, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and sections 16, 18, 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act.

¶11

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balliguda vide order dated 13.03.2020.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.2 is a teacher in the village U.P. School and petitioner no.1 is a labourer and they have been falsely entangled in the case and they are in judicial custody since 29.02.2020 and they have been charge sheeted under sections under sections 120-B, 147, 148,

¶13

302, 460, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and sections 16, 18, 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of the deceased Ranjan Digal on 03.01.2020 before K. Nuagaon Police Station against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, some eye witnesses were examined, but those eye witnesses have stated that the accused persons were calling each other by their names at the time of occurrence and two of such names resemble the petitioners, but no Test Identification Parade has been conducted to establish the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and there is no clinching material relating to the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime and therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may be favourably considered.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produced the case diary and submitted that a meeting was convened prior to the incident to commit murder of the deceased and the eye witness Surendra Pradhan has stated about commission of murder and also stated that the accused persons were calling each other by their names at the time of incident and two of such names tally with the names of the petitioners. He however, fairly submitted that no Test Identification Parade has been conducted in the case.

¶15

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel of the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioners, the fact that no Test Identification Parade has been conducted to establish the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime, taking into account the background of the case and the period of detention of the petitioners in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail.

¶16

Let the petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/(rupees twenty thousand) each with two local 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.

¶17

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

¶18

…………………..……

¶19

S.K. Sahoo, J.

¶20

PKSahoo

Balaram Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram Mallick 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

Jitu @ Jitendra Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Rasmiranjan Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

Sanjib Kumar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Muna @ Rakesh Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Janmajay Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Daini Nahak @ Daini Naik Vs State of Odisha