Dismissed¶33

Md.Kamal @ Kamal Uddin v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Apr 2025BLAPL/2297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — BLAPL No. 2297 of 2025, decided 23.04.2025 by Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi. Petitioners Md. Kamal @ Kamal Uddin & Anr. v. State of Odisha (ASC Gayatri Patra; counsel Pabitra Kumar Nayak). Bail sought after completion of trial (argument stage) in firing-at-police case under Ss. 307/353/34 IPC r/w Ss. 25/27 Arms Act; prayer rejected; one-month deadline imposed on trial court with liberty to renew bail application if unmet.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the character of evidence, the severity of punishment prescribed, and the absence of reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner not guilty, the Court declined to record a favourable finding and rejected the prayer for bail. ¶32

Md.Kamal @ Kamal Uddin Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 2297 of 2025

¶2

Md.Kamal@Kamal Uddin & Anr. ..…... Petitioner(s)

¶3

Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha

¶6

.….... Opposite Party

¶7

Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

23.04.2025

Order No.

F.I.R. No.	Dated	Police Station	Case No. and Courts’ Name	Sections
243	22.10.2022	Banaharpali	C.T. Case No.2783 of 2022 pending in the court of learned CJM-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda	U/s- 307/353/34 of the IPC r/w Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act

¶15

Signature Not V erified

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jul-2025 12:32:39

¶17

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner, who is presently in custody in connection with Banaharpali P.S. Case No. 243 of 2022, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 2783 of 2022 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has filed the present petition seeking release on bail.

¶21

The prosecution case, as per the written report lodged by the informant before the IIC, Sadar Police Station, is that on 22.10.2022 at about 6:30 PM, he received credible information that two veteran and wanted criminals, namely Md. Kamal and Guddu Sa of Bandhabahal, were present near the rear side of Baldev Singh Petrol Pump situated at Kirarama. It was alleged that they were on a motorcycle and were preparing to commit a criminal act at gunpoint in Bandhabahal Township with the intent to extort money. Upon receiving such information, the informant immediately communicated the same to the IIC, Banaharpali Police Station over the phone and made an entry in the Station Diary vide Bandhabahal OP Signature Not Verified

¶22

Station Diary Entry No. 11 dated 22.10.2022. To verify the credibility of the information, a team comprising ASI Prashanta Kumar Pradhan, ASI S.K. Behera, Constable No.

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jul-2025 12:32:39

¶24

¶25

570 Sabit Biswal, Constable No. 578 Bunty Pradhan, and Home Guard No. 436 Mitu Behera was constituted. The team proceeded to the location, where they spotted Md. Kamal and Guddu Sa in a forested area near the petrol pump on a motorcycle. Upon noticing the police presence, the accused persons assumed defensive positions. The police team surrounded them, taking all necessary precautionary measures, and instructed them to surrender. However, the accused persons did not comply. It is alleged that Md. Kamal then drew a country-made pistol from the right pocket of his trousers and fired a round at the police with the intent to cause harm. Accordingly, the present case was registered.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 22.10.2022. He further submits that the trial has already been completed and the matter is on the stage of argument. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner is alleged to have been involved in heinous crime. Hence, he vehemently opposes the prayer for bail.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the character of evidence appearing against the petitioner, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence,

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 10-Jul-2025 12:32:39

¶31

¶32

and the absence of reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty or is not likely to commit any such offence, this Court is not inclined to record a finding favourable to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby rejected. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the hearing of the case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event the hearing does not conclude within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court afresh for bail.

¶33