Orissa High Court
Fadi @ Krutatha Naik vs State Of Orissa on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.10205 of 2022
Fadi @ Krutatha Naik ... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Das(1), Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa ... Opposite Party
Mr. M. Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.01.2023
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. This is an application U/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with C.T. Case No.332-B of 2015
arising out of Boudh P.S. Case No.168 of 2015 pending in the file
of learned S.D.J.M., Boudh, for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 458/395/397/342/120-B of IPC read with Section
25/27 of Arms Act, on the allegation of committing dacoity in the
liquor shop by confining the sales man on the fear of knife, pistol
and bhujali as well as assaulting some of the sales man of the liquor
shop.
3. In the course of hearing of the bail application, Mr. A.K.
Das(1), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been remanded in this case on 12.08.2020, but his name does
not find place in the FIR nor was he been put in T.I. parade and the
very implication of the petitioner in this case, is on the basis of
confession of co-accused and one of the co-accused namely Tabu
Khan has already been acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Boudh in S.T. Case No.18 of 2021 and co-accused Balia
Behera, Padma @ Padma Charan Naik and Soubhagya Mendili
have already been granted bail, but the trial in the present case is yet
to commence, even after two and half years of the custody of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays to
grant bail to the petitioner.
4. On the contrary, Mr. M. Mishra, learned ASC, however,
does not dispute about the implication of the petitioner in this case,
but he, however, strongly opposes the bail application of the
petitioner on the ground that another similar case is pending against
him and since the petitioner was remanded in this case subsequent
to confession of the co-accused, there was no scope on the part of
Investigating Agency to conduct T.I. parade. He further submits
that the materials on record disclose a strong prima facie against the
petitioner and, thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. In support of his contention of acquittal of co-accused,
learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the certified copy of
the judgment and the copy of orders indicating grant of bail to the
co-accused persons referred to above.
6. Considering the rival submissions made and taking into
consideration the nature and gravity of accusations raised against
the petitioner and keeping in view the very implication of the
petitioner in this case and his detention of custody since 12.08.2020
and regard being had to the release of three co-accused persons on
bail as well as acquittal of another co-accused Tabu Khan in this
case and taking into consideration the other circumstance on record
in entirety, this Court admits the petitioner to bail.
7. Hence, the prayer for the bail of the petitioner stands
allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit
and proper with further conditions that the petitioner shall attend the
trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance
is dispensed with and that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case and that
the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police
Station once in a fortnight preferably on second Saturday of every
month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six(06) months from the
actual date of release from the custody. The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional
Police Station shall not detain the petitioner unnecessarily after
recording his attendance beyond the time as stipulated.
It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at
liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference
to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case
for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out.
8. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Subhasmita
