AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Panigrahi, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. Subrata Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The Petitioner being in custody in Bahalda P.S. Case No.07 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.53(A) of 2015, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur, registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 120B/ 396 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms ACt, has filed this petition for his release on bail.
The allegation of the prosecution is that while the informant along with his business friend reached at Bahalda Bazar, found Lakat Khan lying at the Hat field in senseless condition and hence he was lifted to S.D.H. Rairangpur where the medical officer declared him dead. It is alleged that on 31.05.2015 in between 05.45 A.M. to 6.00 A.M. at Bahalda hat field the present Petitioner along with other accused persons conjointly committed murder of the deceased Liyakuddin Khan @ Lakat @ Naka (goat businessman) by gun shot.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the present Petitioner so as to connect him with the alleged crime. The Petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2018. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner may be granted bail on any such terms and condition.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is also submitted that trial is in progress. Hence, he submits that the Petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considering such facts and submissions made and the nature and gravity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the Petitioner, the stringent punishment provided, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner.
However, since it is submitted that the trial is in progress and out of 14 witnesses, as many as 2 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the court in seisin over the matter is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months hence, if there is no other impediment.
Needless to say that if the trial is not concluded within the time stipulated, the Petitioner is at liberty to move for bail again.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
.................................