JUDGMENT

Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release the petitioner on bail for the alleged offence under Sections 147/148/323/294/302/307/506/149 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with C.T. No. 2704 of 2015 arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No. 302(39) of 2015 pending before the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that one apartment of Pratap Thakur was constructed at Patrapada near the All India Institute of Medical science, Bhubaneswar. The deceased was engaged by the contractor to look after the work. So on 05.06.2015 at about 10 a.m. deceased Dilip Naik had gone to the field to supervise the work. At that time the present petitioner along with his brothers and other co-accused persons being armed with deadly weapons came there. The petitioner and other co-accused persons asked Dilip Naik as to why he was gathering the building materials there and the accused persons also abused in obscene languages to the deceased. The informant was also present there. At this moment the present petitioner and other co-accused persons assaulted the deceased. The present petitioner fired from the pistol to deceased Dilip and due to the bullet injury the deceased fell down on the ground. Before firing the present petitioner has also threatened the deceased to kill. On the same day the brother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. On 20.06.2015 the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to custody and after due investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the meantime.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Debasis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case has been falsely filed against the petitioner. Although the fire arm has been seized on being produced by the petitioner, but the cartridges seized from the spot as per the ballistic expert did not appear to have been fired from the fire arm seized from the petitioner. He further submitted that co-accused persons have been released on bail and charge sheet has been submitted. The petitioner is in custody for more than one year, for which he prayed to release the petitioner on bail with any condition as deemed just and proper.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that even if the dispute is for the land, but the overt act of the petitioner is discernible from the statements of the eye witnesses to show that the petitioner fired from the pistol causing bullet injury on the person of the deceased and he died out of such injury. He also submitted that the post mortem examination report is clear to show the cause of death due to injury caused by fire arm. He further submitted that the ballistic expert ;report clearly shows that the cartridges used for causing death have been seized from the spot which has also link to the case of the prosecution. So he submitted to reject the application for bail of the petitioner.

5. Mr. P.K. Ray, learned counsel for the informant submitted that when there are eye witnesses plentily available to show the overt act of the petitioner and the petitioner and the petitioner made leading to discover the weapon of offence, prima facie case is made out. According to him, in such heinous offence the Court should not take lenient view to grant bail to the petitioner and submitted to reject the application for bail.

DISCUSSION

6. Before going to the facts of the case, the law on the question of granting bail should be addressed first.

7. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another; (2001) 4 SCC 280, where Their Lordships proceeded to observe the principles for granting bail in the following manner:-

“(a) While granting bail the Court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the