AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J
This is the second application of the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed in connection with Itamati P.S. Case No. 208 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 743 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh which had been registered under Sections 457, 307, 380, 506 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. But after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 307, 506, 212, 34 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
BLAPL No. 13382 of 2023 filed by the petitioners had been rejected on 12.12.2023 granting liberty to the petitioners to move the learned Court below for bail afresh after completion of investigation. After submission of charge sheet, their prayer for bail has been rejected on 25.01.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in B.A. No. 05/23 of 2024.
The prosecution allegations in brief is that on 05.10.2023 at about 11.40 P.M., the petitioners along with three others with the plan to commit dacoity in the house of the informant, had entered her house from terrace and had broken her Godrej Almira and taken away gold ornaments and while leaving they had trampled over her for which she woke up and raised alarm. In the electric light, she could identity the two petitioners. As she raised hullah, the petitioners went out of her house. After she locked the door, in order to intimidate her, they had hurled bomb and fired a gun which caused damage to the door and window.
Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 29.10.2023 and while the petitioner no.1- Sumanta Moharana does not have any criminal antecedents, petitioner no.2- Tapasa @ Soumya Ranjan Nayak is accused in Itamati P.S. Case No. 156 of 2017 which is under Sections 341, 294, 323, 325, 354, 506 and 34 of IPC. His further submission is that during investigation, Police found that nothing has been stolen from the house of the informant and there is no allegation that any injury has been caused to any of the inmates of the house. As investigation has been completed, the petitioners may be released on bail as they are willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. He further submits that in the meanwhile the case has been committed and is pending in the court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Nayagarh in S.T. Case No. 40 of 2024.
Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the petitioners have entered into the house of the informant in the night and terrorized the inmates and exploded bombs and fired a shot from a gun in order to intimidate them, for which they should not be released on bail.
Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the materials collected against them during investigation, the period spent by them in judicial custody and the submission that the petitioner no.1 has no criminal antecedent and petitioner no.2 has one criminal antecedent which is of the year 2017, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
The petitioners- Sumanta Moharana and Tapasa @ Soumya Ranjan Nayak shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, subject to verification that the petitioner no.1 has no criminal antecedents while petitioner no.2 has one criminal antecedent which is of the year 2017; including the following conditions:
(i) They will not commit any offence while on bail.
(ii) They will not go near the house of the informant.
(iii) They will not try to influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.
(iv) They will report before the Itamati Police Station once in a week preferably on a Sunday between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. for a period of six months or till completion of trial, which is earlier.
Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of bail.
The BLAPL is accordingly allowed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
……………………………..