Orissa High Court
Aslam Khan @ Ravahid vs State Of Odisha on 31 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No. 7971 of 2023
Aslam Khan @ Ravahid .... Petitioner
Mr. SK. Zafarulla, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
31.08.2023
Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case
No.79 of 2023 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Jashipur arising
out of Jashipur P.S. Case No.76 of 2023 for commission of alleged
offence under Sections 457/380 of IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail
U/s. 439 Cr.P.C by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanjia by
order dated 06.07.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present bail
application has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the case at hand
relates to theft from an ATM machine to the tune of 26,81,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand).
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the only basis of implication of the petitioner is on account of
statement of one Md. Sonu Alam who was identified and there is no
other material to connect him with the alleged offence.
6. It is stated that on the basis of the said statement, the
petitioner was subsequently taken into custody on 17.04.2023 and as
charge sheet has already been filed on 25.05.2023, his further
continuance in custody is unwarranted impact is punitive.
7. Learned counsel for the State refutes such submission. He
states that not only the petitioner has been implicated by the co-
accused Md. Sonu Alam, whose bail application has since been
rejected by this Court by order dated 04.07.2023 in BLAPL No.5612
of 2023 but there has been recovery about Rs.50,000/- from the
petitioner and that the petitioner has seven criminal antecedent of
similar nature, which are quoted hereunder;
i. Bahalda PS Case No 147 Dated 20.12.2022 U/s-
394/450/ IPC/25/27 Arms Act,
ii. Jharpokharia PS Case No 125 Dated 08.06.2022 U/s
457/380/120(b) IPC,
iii. Baripada Town PS Case No 450 Dated 08.06.2022 U/s
379/511 IPC
iv. Rasgobindapur PS Case No 129 Dated 09.06.2022 U/s
380/511 of IPC
v. Jhumura PS Case No 42 Dtd. 14.03.2023 U/s-
457/380/427/511 of IPC
vi. Balasore Sadar PS Case No 185 Dated 25.06.2022 U/s
380/120(b) IPC
vii. Khuakhia PS Case No 267 Dtd. 27.08.2022 U/s
457/380/120(b) IPC
8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the
State that the petitioner who admittedly does not reside within the
territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin and he is from
Rajasthan. Hence, is also a flight risk.
9. It is trite law that during the consideration of the bail
application, the statement of the co-accused can be taken into account.
In this regard this Court relying on the celebrated judgment of the
Apex Court in the Case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh
Ranjan reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528.
10. Coupled with the co-accused statement, it is on record that
there has been recovery from the present petitioner. Further keeping in
view the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, as noted and rejection
of the bail application of the co-accused, this Court is not inclined to
entertain this bail application at this stage.
11. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Santoshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-Sep-2023 20:00:49
