Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho, J.
Sarat Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Bail Application No. 2810 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - The petitioner's bail application was rejected in the earlier application, while the bail application of the co-accused was allowed. The petitioner's counsel argued that a significant number of prosecution witnesses had not supported the case, and a co-accused standing on the same footing had been released on bail. The matter was adjourned for further consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was being considered. In the earlier application, the petitioner's bail had been rejected while the co-accused's bail had been allowed. The trial had commenced, and a significant number of prosecution witnesses had not supported the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court adjourned the matter for further consideration after the petitioner's counsel presented the discrepancy in the treatment of the co-accused and the lack of support from prosecution witnesses.
Issues: The disparity in the treatment of the petitioner and the co-accused, and the lack of support from prosecution witnesses were key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to adjourn the matter indicated a willingness to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the treatment of the co-accused and the lack of support from prosecution witnesses.
Final Decision: The final decision was to adjourn the matter for further consideration.
JUDGMENT
Savitri Ratho, J. - This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. In the earlier application, i.e., BLAPL No.6311 of 2020, the prayer for bail of the petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2021 while the prayer for bail of the co-accused, namely, Nata @ Kanhu Charan Sahoo and Papu @ Manoranjan Sahoo has been allowed.
2. Mr. P.C.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile trial has commenced and out of 31 charge sheeted witnesses, 17 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, 16 of those witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that co-accused Susanta Kumar Sahoo standing on same footing as the petitioner has in the meanwhile been released on bail by order dated 24.11.2022 passed in BLAPL No.8304 of 2022. Copy of the said order is filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today. The same is kept on record. A copy of the order be served on learned Additional Government Advocate.
3. Since Ms. S.Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate prays for time to go through the depositions and the order passed in BLAPL No.8304 of 2022, list this matter tomorrow (08.12.2022).
Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
Subsequent bail applications require material change in circumstances; courts cannot review prior orders or appreciate trial evidence at bail stage.
The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.
Delay in trial cannot be used as a ground for bail.
The court ruled bail should be granted when trial delays infringe on the right to personal liberty, provided conditions to prevent tampering with evidence are set.
Grant of Bail - Right of under trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may be considered and protected inasmuch as they should not be compelled to serve maximum punishing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
