Dismissed

Suman Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Nov 2021BLAPL/11169/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder and armed offense case. The High Court refused to grant bail as the trial was nearing completion, allegations were grave, and risk of absconding existed, despite the petitioner's long custody.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; trial to be completed expeditiously.

Suman Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 11169 of 2019

¶3

Suman Kumar Das …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. K.C. Behera, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.C. Das, ASC Mr. G.M.Rath, Advocate (for informant)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER

18.11.2021

The matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard Mr. K.C. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶15

This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail

¶16

to the petitioner-Suman Kumar Das in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.359 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 79 of 2017 pending in the Court of the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-P.O., Children’s Court, Cuttack for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/452/380/120B/34 of IPC read with Sections 25 & 27 Arms Act.

¶17

Mr. K.C. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment to file the deposition of the witnesses.

¶18

Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel states that by order dated 10.12.2019 was passed, 20 out of 37 witnesses had already been examined in this case and they have all supported the prosecution case and the prayer for bail has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the allegations against the accused is grave and the trial was under completion and possibility of the accused absconding could not be ruled out.

¶19

Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel states that he has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant in Court today and states that trial is almost over as

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

the examination of I.O. is going on and the case is pending as some witnesses have been recalled on the basis of the petition filed by the co-accused.

¶22

The allegations against the petitioner is that there was a business rivalry between the petitioner and deceased. When the deceased Kutu @ Binod Bihari Das was standing near a newly constructed building, at that time the petitioner along with the co-accused came to the liquor shop and took liquor and suddenly fired towards him and threatening not to compete against his brother, Tulia Jena.

¶23

Considering the fact that the trial is at the fag end and allegations against the petitioner are under Sections 452/302/120B/34 of IPC read with Sections 25 & 27 Arms Act, I am not inclined to allow this prayer for bail.

¶24

However considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2016, the learned trial court is requested to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the BLAPL is dismissed.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) puspa Judge

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Suman Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumar Das 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

Mahendra Gaya @ Mahendra Kumar Gaya Vs State of Odisha

Tapu@Surjyakanta Rout Vs State of Odisha

Pintu@Digambar Sasamal Vs State of Odisha

Pradip Samal Vs State

Sibaram @ Siba Chandra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Snehalata Behera @ Snehalata Dehury Vs Bankanidhi Dehury