Bablu @ Devi Prasad vs State Of Odisha
2024 Latest Caselaw 8376 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bablu @ Devi Prasad vs State Of Odisha on 6 May, 2024

Bench: S.K. Sahoo, R.K. Pattanaik

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                CRLA No.252 of 2017

            Bablu    @   Devi    Prasad      .....     Appellant/Petitioner
            Das

                                                     Mrs. Chandana Tripathy
                                                     Advocate
                                          -versus-

            State of Odisha                  .....   Respondent/Opp. Party

                                                     Mr. Arupananda Das
                                                     Addl. Govt. Advocate

                                 CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                      ORDER

Order No. 06.05.2024

21. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

The names of Mrs. Chandana Tripathy, learned counsel along with Mr. S. Moharana, learned counsel be reflected in the cause list henceforth for the appellant and the other names shall not be reflected in the cause list.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

( R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

22. This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

Heard.

The appellant-petitioner Bablu @ Devi Prasad Das along with four others have been convicted under section 120-B read with sections 342/506 Part-II/ 394/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 (1-B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months each for the offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of three years each for the offence under section 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, R.I. for a period of four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under section 27(1) of the Arms Act and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate punishment is

awarded under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as punishment is imposed on the convicts for their each act of conspiracy by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial Case No.97 of 2012/14 of 2013.

Perused the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on bail during trial and after conviction, he was released on interim bail and after availing the same, he surrendered at right time. Placing the depositions of the eye witnesses particularly P.W.6, who is the mother of the deceased Sunita Prusty, it is argued that the main accusation is against co-accused Biku @ Sunil Kumar Prusty, who stated to have fired gunshots at the deceased Sunita Prusty, which resulted in her death and the said co-accused Biku @ Sunil Kumar Prusty has already been granted bail by this Court in CRLA No.332 of 2017 vide order dated 08.11.2023 in I.A. No.2609 of 2023 and therefore, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

Learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that the main allegation is against the co-accused Biku @ Sunil Kumar Prusty. He has not pointed out that the petitioner has misutilised his liberty in any manner during the period of interim bail granted by this Court.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of overt act attributed against the petitioner as per the statements of the eye witnesses, the period of detention of the petitioner in

judicial custody, the fact that the petitioner was on bail during trial and also interim bail for some period granted by this Court and since the co-accused, against whom the main allegation has been made, has already been released on bail, we are inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Let the appellant-petitioner be released on bail pending disposal of the appeal 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 trial Court subject to condition that the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities in any manner.

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

( R.K. Pattanaik) Judge RKM

Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-May-2024 12:54:30