Chamru Munda Vs State of Odisha

Since both the bail applications have arisen out of G.R. Case No.552 of 2024 in connection with Patnagarh P.S. Case No.135 of 2024, then both the bail applications are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common order.

¶18

I have already heard from the learned Counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶19

The Petitioners are in jail custody since 24.04.2024 having been implicated under Section-395 of the IPC on the allegation of commission of dacoity of manganese loaded truck of the Informant

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

being associated with three others on dated 21.03.2024, while the said truck bearing registration No.OD-17Z-1465 was moving from Chapa to Vishakhapatnam and when the Driver thereof had parked that Manganese loaded truck near Rampur Petrol Pump, Patnagarh and was taking rest. After commission of dacoity, when the driver of the truck, intimated the said matter to the informant, the informant lodged the F.I.R.

¶22

On the basis of the said F.I.R., the case was registered, and investigation was started.

¶23

During investigation, the police seized the manganese loaded truck of the Informant near village Gaibahal and left the same in the zima of its owner.

¶24

During investigation, the I.O. come to know about the involvement of these Petitioners with that dacoity, for which, Investigating Officer arrested the petitioners and forwarded them to the Court on 24.04.2024 after being booked them under section395 of the IPC, and since then, they (Petitioners) are in jail custody.

¶25

The learned Counsels for the Petitioners submitted for liberal consideration of their bail contending that, in the meantime, the investigation of the case has already been completed and the Petitioners are in custody for more than seven months and the stolen manganese loaded truck has already been seized and the Petitioners have not taken anything from the alleged dacoity, to which, the learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objected contending that, as the Petitioners have committed dacoity of a manganese loaded truck, for which, they (Petitioners) should not be allowed to go on bail.

¶26

When, the Petitioners are in jail custody since 24.04.2024 for about more than seven months and when during the staying of

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

the Petitioners inside the jail, the investigation of the case has already been completed, and when the stolen properties i.e. manganese loaded truck has already been recovered and seized and the same has already been handed over in the zima of the owner i.e. Informant and when the main object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused persons during trial and when the permanent house and homestead of the Petitioners are situated in the Balangir District and when the presence of the Petitioners during the trial is not unsecured, then at this juncture, instead of rejecting the prayer for bail of the Petitioners, it is felt proper to allow them (Petitioners) to go on bail with stringent conditions, not to allow them (Petitioners) to be involved with similar nature of crime in future.

¶29

Hence, both the bail applications filed by the Petitioners are allowed.

¶30

They (Petitioners) are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with conditions that:-

¶31

(i) they (Petitioners) shall not involve with any crime in future.

¶32

(ii) they (Petitioners) shall appear personally before the Trial Court on each and every date of adjournment of the case during trial till its conclusion without fail.

¶33

(iii) they (Petitioners) shall not terrorize, coerce, influence or threat any witnesses of the prosecution including the informant and any of his family members either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever at any stage of the proceeding of the case.

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

(iv) they (Petitioners) shall appear before the IIC, Patnagarh Police Station on each Sunday once till the conclusion of the trial of the case, but in case of their failure to comply any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Court in seisin over the matter is authorized to cancel their respective bail orders outrightly without seeking any permission for the same from this Court.

¶36

Accordingly, both the bail applications filed by the Petitioners are disposed of finally with a copy to the IIC, Patnagarh Police Station for his information and report before the trial Court in case of violation of any of the conditions by any of the Petitioners.

¶37

Grant certified copy of this order to the Petitioners on their proper application.

¶38

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

¶39

Narayan

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Dec-2024 15:48:28

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Chamru Munda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chamru Munda 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

Banchha Vs Satyabhama

Mahendra Vs Gobinda

Ranjit Singh @ Teru Vs State of Odisha

Khageswar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Sahu @ Sahoo Vs State of Odisha