The court emphasized the importance of specific and detailed allegations, the discretion of the court in considering evidence, and the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

JUDGMENT

1. BLAPL No.5786 of 2020 and BLAPL No.5787 of 2020 being similar in facts, nature of offence committed and the involvement of the same person, hence both are heard analogously and taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner has filed BLAPL No.5786 of 2020 under Section 439 of Cr.PC seeking bail in connection with Khandagiri P.S. Case No.272 of 2020 dated 19.05.2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2187 of 2019 pending before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the complainant on 19.05.2019 at about 5:30 to 6:00 A.M. while on his way to drop his brother-in-law Deepak Rout at the Railway Station, was attacked by some suspects in front of Jaya Durga Club, Jagamara. The alleged suspects appeared on two bikes, attacked them and on the point of Bhujali and Pistol, took away their gold chains, lockets, gold ear ring and escaped. Thereafter the complainant lodged the FIR in the Khandagiri Police Station as he further came to know that the suspects also snatched away gold ornaments of two other women at different places in a similar manner.

4. The petitioner has also filed BLAPL No.5787 of 2020 under Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail in connection with Khandagiri P.S. Case No.317 of 2020 dated 10.06.2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2540 of 2019 further corresponding to C.T. No.41 of 2020 pending before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 364 and 394 of I.P.C.

5. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Dillip Dehury is a driver of an Innova car and on 09.06.2019 at about 10 P.M. while he was taking his car out from the parking area in front of SBI ATM near Gitanjali Vatika, he was strongly received a blow on his head from behind. Thereafter, the suspects forcibly made the complainant sit on the middle seat and tied a napkin on his face. One of the suspects drove the vehicle while the others caught hold of him. After sometime the suspects parked the car and took the complainant to kill him. However, the complainant managed to escape and fled away from the spot and with the help of local people he informed the Police after which he was taken to hospital for treatment.

6. The forwarding report in Badagada P.S. Case No.186, dated 04.08.2019 reveals that the present accused is involved in 15 other Criminal Cases of similar nature. It is further revealed that on that particular date, the IIC, Badagada P.S. got information about the presence of accused and co-accused Harekrushna Sahu in Rabi Talkies area. At about 3:15 A.M. in the night, the IIC Badagada P.S. along with his staff tried to apprehend the accused and his associate. However, rather than surrendering, they fired five rounds of bullets at the police. In the counter firing, the present accused and his associates got injured and both of them were apprehended. Out of their possession, one loaded pistol with live ammunition, mobile phones and cash were recovered.

7. Heard Ms. Prajna Sarita Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. S. S. Kanungo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the case records.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Prajna Sarita Mohanty has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would go to show that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner or person by name. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime though there is complete absence of evidence on record to implicate him in the crime. Further, she has submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that none of the witnesses have seen the petitioner committing the alleged offe