Harihara Mohanty vs State Of Odisha

G. Satapathy, J.

This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Purusottampur PS Case No.314 of 2022 corresponding to GR Case No.294 of 2022 in connection with ST Case No.29 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatrapur, Ganjam for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/ 323/ 326/ 307/ 120-B/ 325/ 34 of IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of Arms Act, on the main allegation of assaulting the deceased Jogesh Behera and injured Ajit Kumar Panigrahi, along with co-accused persons by a sharp cutting weapons.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, learned Sr. counsel who is being assisted by Mr. Jitendra Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is in custody since last four years, but the trial is yet to be concluded and there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but even if taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses, the injured eye witnesses having turned hostile and there being nothing on record to implicate the petitioner for assaulting the deceased to death and for causing injury to the injured, he may kindly be granted bail.

On the other hand, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP by placing the evidence of witnesses, more particularly that of eye witnesses prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner.

After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears allegation against the petitioner and others for committing murder of the deceased Jogesh Behera and injuring the informant by assaulting them with sharp cutting weapons, but in the meantime, trial has progressed with examination of some witnesses, however, threadbare analysis of the evidence of witnesses is impermissible at the stage of consideration of bail. It is not dispute that the deceased has suffered homicidal death, but it is equally true that the informant has become hostile, however, the other witnesses have spoken against the petitioner, but that is subject to scrutiny in the trial, however, at this stage grant of bail to the accused would definitely impede the fairness in the trial because other witnesses are yet to be examined. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the allegation as levelled against the petitioner and keeping in view the mode and manner of commission of the crime, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. In view of the alternative oral prayer as advanced for the petitioner, trial be expedited, if there is no other legal impediment. Looking at the custody period, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court, if the trial is not concluded within six months hence.

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order may immediately be transmitted to the Court concerned.