AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
Since these two bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Pottangi PS Case No.132 of 2023 corresponding to CT Case No.39 of 2024 pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 147/ 148/ 341/ 323/ 325/ 506/ 324/ 436/302/307/364/149 of IPC r/w sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, on the main allegation of committing rioting along with co-accused persons being armed with deadly weapons and in the process, committing murder of one Rajkumar Rudi, and attacking & injuring the brother, sister and mother of the deceased as well as setting fire to their dwelling house in consequence of the revenge of the murder of one Gobardhan Pandaka committed by the deceased, his father and brother.
In the course of hearing, Mr. Sk. Zafarulla & Mr. Biraja Prasad Nanda, learned counsels for the respective Petitioners submit that three eye witnesses have already been examined, but they have become hostile to the prosecution case against the Petitioners and even if the other eye witnesses are concerned, they have not whispered the name of the present Petitioners in their statements. Further, the so called witness PW4 although stated the name of some of the accused persons, but he has not specifically referred the name of the present Petitioners in his testimony and that apart, the said witness was examined by the Police after eight months of the occurrence and, therefore, this evidence cannot be taken into consideration to refuse bail to the Petitioners. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Zafarulla and Mr. Nanda pray to grant bail to the Petitioners.
On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP by placing the materials on record submits that not only the witnesses, who have been examined are eye witnesses to the occurrence, but also there are other eye witnesses to the occurrence; such as witnesses Meena Khara, Rasmi Rudi, Dillip Khara, Manoj Khara, who are yet to be examined and PW4 has in fact testified against the Petitioners and thereby, the bail application of the Petitioners may kindly be rejected.
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, not only there appears allegation against the Petitioners for committing murder of the deceased Rajkumar Rudi on revenge in sequel of murder of one Gobardhan Pandaka allegedly committed by the deceased, his father and brother just few hours before the present incident, but also there appears allegation against the Petitioners for attempting to the life of the brother, sister and mother of the deceased by attacking them with lethal weapons and also setting fire to their house. In the meantime, the testimony of four witnesses has been made available to the Court, but out of the aforesaid four witnesses, three of them have not supported the prosecution allegation against the Petitioners, whereas the fourth one has testified about the occurrence. No doubt, it is advanced for the petitioners that since PW.4 has been examined by the Police after eight months of the occurrence, but law is equally well settled that detail examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation on merit should be avoided at the stage of consideration of bail. Further, the material witnesses are yet to be examined and eye witnesses, like the informant, Meena Khara, Dillip Khara and Manoj Khara have not yet been examined. Besides, PW4 Sagar Badabura has allegedly video graphed the incident in his Mobile phone. Additionally, the allegation and counter allegation made by both the parties against each other reveal death of one person each from both the groups and death of such two persons had in fact allegedly been executed brutally.
In view of the above facts and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences as alleged against the petitioner vis-à-vis the accusation sought to be brought against him and regard being had to the mode and manner of implication of the present Petitioners and the circumstance under which the deceased was done to death and the materials collected in support of the allegation against the petitioners and the offences alleged against the Petitioners being punishable with death or imprisonment for life, this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioners.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioners stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A soft copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned trial Court.