Dismissed

Bikash Munda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2020BLAPL/2733/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice S. Pujahari dismissed the bail application of Bikash Munda, accused in a G.R. case involving serious offences including attempted murder. The court noted his 21 prior cases, prior rejection on merit, and risks to trial and witnesses, finding no new circumstances to warrant release.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for release on bail was rejected and the bail application was dismissed.

Bikash Munda Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

BLAPL NO.2733 OF 2020

Bikash Munda.

…….. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha …….. Opp.party

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

03. 09.09.2020

¶9

In the wake of the Pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner being in custody in G.R. Case No.3116 of 2018, arising out of Ainthapali P.S. Case No.356 of 2018, pending in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506, 427, 307, 394/34 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶12

The petitioner being in custody in connection with the aforesaid case has sought for release on bail.

¶13

It appears that the petitioner along with his associates came near the shop of the informant’s brother being armed with different deadly weapons, such as, pistol, beer bottle, Bhujali, iron rod, weeden plank, etc. and abused him in filthy languages and

¶14

¶15

threatened the shopkeepers to close their shops. Then, when the informant and when the Informant and other shopkeepers tried to refrain them, they stated to have thrown the utensils, accessories and tiffin items of his shop and also damaged other shops, assaulted the informant and his brother with beer bottle, wooden plank, Bhujali with an intention to kill them and at the point of gun they took away a cash of Rs.10,000/-.

¶16

It appears that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, inasmuch as he was involved in twentyone cases. Prayer for bail of the petitioner once filed was dismissed being withdrawn vide order dated 17.09.2019 passed in BLAPL No.6565 of 2019. Thereafter he had again approached this Court for his release on bail in BLAPL No.9414 of 2019 which was also dismissed on merit. The petitioner has again approached this Court for his release on bail in the present bail application.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of the case is not progressing and the offence alleged being under Section 307 of I.P.C., the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶18

However, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail advancing the submission that the petitioner’s earlier prayer for bail was rejected on merit and the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedents and, as such, possibility of committing similar offence on his release is not ruled out. Hence, the petitioner should not be released on

¶19

¶20

bail, submits the learned counsel for the State.

¶21

The petitioner has been indicted in a heinous and serious offence under Section 307 of IPC and other offences. The offence under Section 307 of IPC provides imprisonment for life on conviction. The petitioner is a person of criminal antecedents inasmuch as he has 21 (twenty-one) cases to his credit. The petitioner’s prayer for bail was earlier rejected on merit and since then there is no change in circumstance except the fact that the petitioner remained in custody some time more since then. The delay in disposal of the case is also not inordinate one. The same is also not attributable to the prosecution in any manner for the reasons that the Advocates of the local Bar for some times abstained from Court work and, as such, trial did not proceed. Soon after the Court work was resumed, due to the spread of Pandemic Covid-19 again the normal functioning of the Court was paralyzed. Hence, the delay. Possibility of the petitioner’s release having an adverse impact on trial is not ruled out, as looking into his criminal antecedents, the witnesses may not come forward to depose the truth. The petitioner also on his release due to criminal antecedents repeating the similar nature of offence is also not ruled out. This Court had earlier rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on merit considering the aforesaid facts and submissions. Therefore, as the petitioner has remained in custody for some times more after such rejection and there is no progress in trial, this Court is not

¶22

¶23

inclined to release the petitioner on bail, more so when the aforesaid would tantamount to review of an earlier of rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner without any just and plausible reason.

¶24

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected and the BLAPL stands disposed of being dismissed.

…………………

S.Pujahari, J.

MRS

Bikash Munda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Munda 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

Sanatan Nayak Vs General Manager, Odisha State Agricultural Marketing Board

Balaram Patro Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bishnupriya Swain Vs State of Odisha

Baisnab Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Madhab Das Vs State of Odisha