Artabandhu Banchhor Vs State of Odisha

The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.68/58 of 2023 (C.T. Case No.1621 of 2022) pending on the file of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bargarh, arising out of Bhatli P.S. Case No.269 of 2022 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 302/34 of IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case is pending in any other Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bargarh by order dated 22.02.2024 in

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

¶19

This is the fourth journey of the Petitioner to this Court.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the meanwhile two of the witnesses, referring to whose statement the earlier bail application of the Petitioner i.e. BLAPL No.13703 of 2023 which was rejected by order dated 02.01.2024, have been examined as P.W.2 and 5, namely, Banabas Mohapatra and Sukanta Behera respectively.

¶21

Referring to those depositions which are on record, it is submitted with vehemence that taking into account the nature of evidence qua the accusation visà-vis the Petitioner, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted. 8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the very fact two material witnesses have not supported the prosecution goes to show that the Petitioner even while in custody has been able to derail the ongoing trial.

¶22

Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and he states that such an analogy is impermissible merely because the witnesses examined have not supported the prosecution in Court. 10. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the State draws the attention of this Court to the disclosure statement of the present Petitioner in

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

pursuance to which the weapon of offence was recovered.

¶25

The witnesses in respect of the same have admittedly not been examined.

¶26

Considering the nature of accusation qua the Petitioner, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State that releasing the Petitioner at this stage would derail the ongoing trial and shall affect the sanctity thereof.

¶27

Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage.

¶28

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶29

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Court in seisin after examination of the witnesses to the recovery.

¶30

Since the Petitioner is stated to be in custody from 14.12.2022, learned Court in seisin is requested to expedite the trial.

¶31

Registry is requested to communicate this order.

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Santoshi

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Aug-2024 18:49:08

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Artabandhu Banchhor v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Artabandhu Banchhor v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bisharba Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Sahoo @ Nilu Vs State of Odisha

Irshad Vs State of Odisha

Dipak Kumar Nayak@ Raza Vs State of Odisha

Sankuru @ Manoj Dalai Vs State of Odisha

Sibasankar Gouda Vs State of Odisha