Orissa High Court
Dima @ Asit Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha on 18 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.7900 of 2021
Dima @ Asit Kumar Das .... Petitioner
Mr.Yasobanta Das
Senior Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr.D.K. Pani
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
18.02.2022
07. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard Mr. Yasobanta Das, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.K.
Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that in the meantime, the case has been committed to
the Court of Session and it is now subjudiced in the
Court of Learned C.J.M. -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge,
Cuttack in S.T No. 266 of 2021.
This is an application under section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection
with Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.450 of 2020
corresponding to S.T No. 266 of 2021 pending in the
Court of learned C.J.M. -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge,
// 2 //
Cuttack for alleged commission of offence under
section 25 of the Arms Act.
The petitioner moved an application for bail
before the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack,
which was rejected on 09.09.2021.
Mr. Yosabanta Das, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was taken into judicial custody on
14.12.2020 in connection with this case and he has
been charge sheeted under section 25 of the Arms
Act. When he approached this Court earlier in BLAPL
No. 682 of 2021, as per order dated 13.07.2021 while
rejecting the prayer for bail, the learned trial Court
was directed to expedite the trial and if possible, to
conclude the same by the end of December 2021 and
the petitioner was given liberty to renew the prayer
for bail, if the trial is not concluded within the
aforesaid period. Learned counsel further submitted
that though in the meantime, charge has been framed
against the petitioner under section 25(1-B)(a) of the
Arms Act, but not a single witness has been examined
so far and as per the charge sheet, there are thirteen
witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution
and therefore, the bail application may be favourably
reconsidered.
Mr. D.K. Pani, learned counsel for the State, on
the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail mainly on
the ground that there are number of criminal
// 3 //
antecedents against the petitioner.
Status report was called for from the learned
trial Court and the learned trial Court has furnished
the status report dated 10.02.2022 from which it
appears that charge was framed against the petitioner
under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and no
prosecution witnesses have turned up in the case to
give their evidence and that the case is posted to
25.02.2022 for recording of evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a
comprehensive affidavit relating to the criminal
antecedents wherein it is indicated that twenty three
cases were instituted against the petitioner at
different points of time and he has been acquitted in
nineteen cases.
A submission was made on 11.02.2022 that out
of the remaining four cases, the petitioner is on bail in
three cases and time was taken to produce the bail
orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the
copies of the orders in all those cases, which shows
that the petitioner has been granted bail in Paradip
Lock P.S. Case No. 149 of 2017 pending in the Court
of learned J.M.F.C., (P), Kujanga by this Court in
BLAPL No. 2703 of 2018 and so far as Jagatsinghpur
P.S.Case No.313 of 2017 is concerned, it is the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner approached this Court for
// 4 //
anticipatory bail in ABLAPL No. 20644 of 2017 and as
per order dated 10.01.2018, he was asked to
surrender in the Court below and move for bail and
both the Courts below were directed to dispose of the
bail application on the same day. It is further
contended that as per the order passed in ABLAPL
No.20644 of 2017, the petitioner surrendered and he
has been released on bail. It is further submitted that
in another case i.e. Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No. 58 of
2011, the petitioner challenged the criminal
proceeding as well as the order of issuance of non-
bailable warrant before this Court in CRLMC No. 3672
of 2016 and this Court by order dated 19.12.2016 in
Misc. case No. 2822 of 2016 granted stay of execution
of the non-bailable warrant of arrest.
The minimum punishment prescribed for the
offence under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act is
two years and maximum is five years with fine and it
is further provided that the Court may for any
adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a
term of less than one year.
Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of
accusation against the petitioner, the fact that the
earlier order passed by this Court in BLAPL No. 682 of
2021 has not been complied with by the learned trial
Court and not a single witness has been examined so
// 5 //
far and further taking into account the punishment
prescribed for the offence charged and the period of
detention of the petitioner in custody, I am inclined to
reconsider the prayer for bail and direct the petitioner
to be released on bail.
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties
each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned Court in seisin over the matter with further
conditions as the learned Court may deem just and
proper with further conditions as the learned Court
may deem just and proper and with further conditions
that the petitioner shall appear before the Inspector
in-charge of Chauliaganj police station on each
Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till the
conclusion of trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal
activities, shall appear before learned trial Court on
each date when the case would be posted for trial and
shall not try to tamper with the evidence. Violation of
any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
Before accepting the bail bonds, the learned trial
Court shall verify the bail order of the petitioner
passed in connection with G.R. Case No.1203 of 2017,
which arises out of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No. 313 of
2017 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Jagatsinghpur. If in the said case the petitioner has
been granted bail, then only bail bonds in this case
// 6 //
shall be accepted.
BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo)
PKSahoo Judge
