A first offender may be granted bail if the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence for direct involvement in a serious crime, especially during ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

V.NARASINGH, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No.580 of 2022, pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Puri, arising out of Puri Town P.S. Case No.90 of 2022, for commission of alleged offences under Sections 302 /120(B)/34 of IPC read with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and is in custody since 21.03.2022.

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 1^st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Puri by order dated 04.08.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

5. It is submitted by Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased Krushna Chandra Pratihari @ Kalia succumbed to the gun shot injuries and the overt act is attributed to the two co-accused persons Tutu @Prafulla Ku. Mohapatra and Kunmuni @ Laxman Suara.

6. On the basis of materials on record, it is submitted that there were two other co-accused Hari Panda and Baba @ Asish Mohapatra, who were present at the spot of occurrence. It is stated with vehemence that even if the entire prosecution allegation is accepted at its face value the petitioner’s implication at best can be under Section 120 -B of the IPC and as he is in custody since 02.03.2022 and charge sheet having been filed on 17.07.2022, his further continuance in custody is not warranted and more so when he is the first offender.

7. Learned counsel for the State Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC and Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC as well as the informant Mr. J. Pal oppose the prayer for bail inter alia on the ground that an analysis of the entire prosecution case unerringly points to the involvement of the present petitioner and his father who conspired to take revenge against the deceased whom they perceived to be the master mind in the murder of their uncle. And, since the accused involved in the said case were acquitted to reek vengeance they designed for killing the deceased.

7(A). It is stated by the learned counsel for the State as well as the informant that there are cogent materials to establish motive for the crime.

7(B). Since investigation has been kept open, petitioner ought not to be released on bail at this stage.

8. Perused the statement of eyewitness Narasingha Panda and Pichi Kalia @ Trinath Mohanty. In both the statements, specific overt act is attributed, as rightly stated by the learned counsel for the parties, to Tutu and Kunmuni and the eye witnesses speak about the presence of the two other co-accused namely Hari Panda and Baba.

9. On a close scrutiny of the statement of eye witness Narasingha Panda, it is seen that while referring to the overt act as committed and noted hereinabove, he has also stated that while running away from the place of occurrence they (Tutu & Kunmuni) were shouting that the desire of the present petitioner and his father, has been fulfilled.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no other legally admissible material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime except the statement of eyewitness Narasingha Panda, as noted above. Hence, his further continuance in custody is punitive.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as the informant relied on the statements of the accused Tutu who gave recovery of the weapon of offence and ammunition, Kalu @ Satya Narayan Panigrahi who lead to recovery of Rs. 1 Lakh which was paid as the alleged contract amount