Sarat Kumar Biswal vs State Of Odisha

A.K. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Kanpur P.S. Case No.152 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.407 of 2023, pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Narasinghpur, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2024. He further contended that the charge-sheet has been filed on 20.03.2024 keeping the investigation open. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the allegation made in the FIR, submitted that initially the Petitioner was not named in the FIR as an accused. He further contended that the son of deceased namely one Happy @ Satyabrata Das and Raja @ Srikanta Rath were arrested as accused in the FIR lodged by Anjali Panda on 21.09.2023. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further referring the allegation made in the FIR submitted that the Petitioner is in no way connected alleged crime. Further, so far, the present Petitioner is concerned the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the principal accused procured arms from the present Petitioner by paying him a sum of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand). The same gun which was procured from the present Petitioner is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. He further submitted that there is nothing to indicate the involvement of the present Petitioner in the offences under 302, 210, 34 of IPC. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that since the principal accused had procured arms from the present Petitioner after paying a consideration in money, it cannot be said that the present Petitioner had any intention of participating in the alleged crime. He further submitted that at best only offence under arms act can be alleged against the present Petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. It was also submitted that since the Petitioner belongs to locality, there is no chance of absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and condition which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the allegations made in the FIR are serious in nature. He also contended that the investigation is still open. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the present Petitioner was not involved in the crime. He further contended that the allegation against the Petitioner of possessing arms is already established in view of the fact that the principal accused had procured the said arms from the present Petitioner by paying a sum of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand). In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioner in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioner and submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

On a careful analysis of the materials on record, this Court observes that initially the Petitioner was not named in the FIR. The Petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of the fact that the principal accused had procured arms from the present Petitioner. At this juncture this Court is of the view that the weapon used in the crime, having been purchased for a commercial consideration, indicates the lack of any intention on the part of the Petitioner to participate in the crime. However, the aforesaid fact can only be established during trial.

Considering the materials on record, on a careful consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances, after taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter.

Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

....…………………………….