Single judge disposed of a bail petition by rejecting the ground that medical examination did not support the prosecution's case, noting no change in circumstances or cogent reason to review the earlier refusal order.
Prayer for bail rejected; BLAPL dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9412 of 2021
Amar Singh Majhi.
…. Petitioner
-versus-
…. State of Odisha Opposite Party
CORAM: JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI
Order No.
ORDER 07.01.2022 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioner being in custody in C.T. Case No.26 of 2020, arising out of Tuamula Rampur P.S. Case No.100 of 2019, pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 376, 506, 294 and 341 of IPC. 4. It appears that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2020 in BLAPL No.33 of 2020 by a reasoned order looking into the materials on record. The petitioner has again approached this Court for his release on bail on the ground that medical examination report did not support the case of the prosecution and the petitioner is in custody for about three years.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
MRS
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is already in custody based on medical report not supporting the prosecution?
Whether the earlier bail order refusing release on similar grounds requires review and subversion?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Singh Majhi
State of Odisha
S. PUJAHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
