Allowed

Amit Dash v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Aug 2020BLAPL/528/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram Justice S. Pujahari. In a bail application regarding an FIR for offences involving violence and explosives, the High Court allowed bail after noting that the co-accused was already released. The Court observed no specific overt act against the petitioner and ordered his release.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner be released on bail with conditions including reporting to police once a month.

Amit Dash Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

BLAPL NO.528 OF 2020

Amit Dash.

…….. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha …….. Opp.party

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

06. 26.08.2020

¶9

The petitioner being in custody in S.T. No.77 of 2019, arising out of G.R. Case No.295 of 2018 corresponding to Digapahandi P.S. Case No.228 of 2018, has filed this petition for his release on bail as his prayer for bail has been refused by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2019. The petitioner has been indicted in the aforesaid case for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 353, 307, 332/34 of I.P.C., Section 25(1-B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶10

¶11

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 the State. 3. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, but the same was not pressed. Thereafter, the petitioner has again approached the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur for his release on bail, but the same having been refused, the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this bail application.

¶12

4. It is alleged that the petitioner and the coaccused, namely, Ajaya Pradhan were wanted in Digapahandi P.S. Case No.220 of 2018, and that on 21.12.2018 at about 6.30 a.m., the I.I.C. of Digapahandi Police Station on receiving reliable information regarding movement of both of them proceeded towards Ghodahada Dam along with other police staff in a Bolero vehicle for the purpose of arresting them and at village- Chakatentuli Chhak, the

¶13

¶14

Police team found them coming from the side of Ghodahada Dam in a motorcycle propelled by Ajaya Pradhan. Seeing the police team, Ajaya Pradhan geared up the motorcycle while divulging threat at the police team, and the I.I.C. and his team members chased them in their vehicle. It is further alleged that when the police vehicle came closer to the accused persons, the accused-petitioner hurled three bombs aiming at the police team and two of those bombs exploded causing injuries to one A.S.I. and one constable. Then, when the I.I.C. tried to block the movement of the motorcycle of the accused persons, both of them opened fire from country made pistols which hit the Bolero vehicle of the police team. It is the further case of the prosecution that while accused – Ajaya Pradhan was about to continue with the firing, the I.I.C. in exercise of the Right of his Private Defence opened fire from his service pistol aiming at below the waist line of Ajaya Pradhan and in the result of which the latter fell down with bleeding injury on his left leg, and his country made pistol slipped away from his grip. The present

¶15

¶16

petitioner, however, managed to escape and the injured – Ajaya Pradhan was shifted to nearest hospital. The I.I.C. drew up a plain paper F.I.R. basing on which Digapahandi P.S. Case No.228 dated 21.12.2018 was registered and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner as well as the co-accused – Ajaya Pradhan who are now under trial in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2019 in the Court of the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur.

¶17

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case for the reason of his friendship with the co-accused – Ajaya Pradhan who had enmity with police people. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no specific overt act having been attributed to the petitioner and there being no seizure of firearm or any incriminating object from his possession and the co-accused having already been released on bail pursuant to the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by this Court in BLAPL No.8900 of2019, bail should be granted to the petitioner who is

¶18

¶19

in a better footing.

¶20

6. Learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State, however, resisted the petition on the ground of the nature and gravity of the indictment.

¶21

7. Regard being had to the submissions advanced by both the sides and taking note of the nature of accusation and character of evidence qua the petitioner as depicted from record and also keeping in view that the co-accused – Ajaya Pradhan has already been granted bail, the petitioner is found to be entitled to bail.

¶22

8. Hence, the BLAPL is allowed. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper including the condition that upon bail, the petitioner shall report before the I.I.C., Digapahandi Police Station once in every month preferably on a Sunday for two hours for a period of one year or till completion of the trial, whichever is earlier.

¶23

¶24

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶25

………………… S.Pujahari, J.

¶26

MRS

¶27

Amit Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Dash 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

P.Durga Prasad Rao Vs State of Odisha

Prakash @ Karunakar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Madhumita Nayak Vs Chithra Arumagam

Bibhu @ Pratap Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Duryodhana Thati @ Dirju Vs State of Odisha

Bhima Turuk Vs State of Odisha