This order dismissed the bail petition of the petitioner accused in a dacoity case involving murder. The court rejected the bail application citing the heinous nature of the offence, capital punishment consequences, the petitioner's role as the instigator, and his criminal antecedents.
Petitioner's prayer for release on bail stands rejected.
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.3405 OF 2020
Lakhidhar Naik.
…….. Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha …….. Opp.party
O R D E R
05. 14.08.2020
In the wake of the Pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner being in custody in C.T. Case No.14 of 2020, arising out of Junagarh P.S. Case No.15 of 2020, pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Junagarh, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 396, 412, 414, 307, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution allegation is that on 09.01.2020 while the father and brother of the informant returning to their village- Borguda from Bhawanipatna with an amount of Rs.6 lacs which was the sale proceeds of their cotton sold, near Tentulikhunti Chowk, they were attacked by three unknown persons with iron rod, knife and pistol and robbed of the said amount. Due to their such attack, they were seriously injured and the
2
brother of the informant while being shifted to the hospital thereafter he succumbed to the injuries sustained. Investigation in this case appears to have been completed and charge-sheet has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. not he was identified in any T.I. parade. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Sambaru Sahu @ Samaru Sahu has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2020 passed in BLAPL No.2338 of 2020 and, as such, the present petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State, however, disputes that the present petitioner is similarly situated with the co-accused released on bail, namely, Sambaru Sahu @ Samaru Sahu, inasmuch as co-accused was the receiver of the stolen property which was obtained in commission of the dacoity, but the petitioner in this case is the kingpin of the offence and at his instance the entire operation of dacoity was made. Therefore, the petitioner has no case on parity. Otherwise also, the petitioner has no case on merit, inasmuch as the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and serious in nature prescribing capital punishment and the petitioner has criminal antecedents.
On consideration of the facts and submission made, especially the heinousness and seriousness of the alleged offence under Section 396 of I.P.C., i.e., committing murder in course of committing dacoity,
3
punishment provided on conviction for the same being capital one, circumstances in which the petitioner has been indicted in this case, role ascribed to him and so also the nature of incriminating materials available, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. Hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of being dismissed.
………………… S.Pujahari, J.
MRS
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, accused in a dacoity case punishable with capital punishment and having criminal antecedents, deserves release on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lakhidhar Naik
State of Odisha
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
