AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is the bail application U/S.483 of the BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Puintala P.S. Case No. 206 of 2023 corresponding to Sessions Case No.09/02 of 2024 (G.R. Case No. 1463 of 2023) pending in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir, for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 302/34 of IPC, on the main allegation of committing murder of one Niruel Kumbhar, along with co-accused persons in furtherance of their common intention.
Heard, Mr. Manoj Kumar Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record including the certified copy of deposition of PW.19.
Admittedly, the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court in BLAPL No. 5193 of 2025 for non-examination of witness to the disclosure statement of the petitioner, since he has allegedly given recovery of weapon of offence pursuant to his disclosure statement. Further, the petitioner has not disclosed his criminal antecedent in his bail application, but it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned State Counsel that the petitioner is involved in three number of criminal cases in Tarva P.S. Case No. 151 of 2018, Bolangir Town P.S. Case No. 321 of 2017 and Puintala P.S. Case No. 82 of 2019. In regard to suppression of material facts, this Court is fortified with the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-9 has inter alia held as under:-
“9.since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.” Xxxx xxx xx xx.
The non-disclosure of criminal cases by the petitioner itself amounts to suppression of material facts. In such view of the matter and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-‡-vis the accusations sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the materials collected in support of the allegation against the petitioner and one of the witnesses to disclosure statement having not yet been examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. A soft copy of this judgment be immediately transmitted to the Court in seisin over the matter for reference.