Bail granted due to absence of criminal history and recovery of the victim, despite initial non-compliance with court orders.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo stating therein that the case has been committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara vide S.T. Case No.110 of 2023. The same is taken on record.

3. The petitioner is an accused in connection with S.T. Case No.110 of 2023, pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, arising out of Rajkanika P.S. Case No.281 of 2020 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341 /323/324/307/379/34 of IPC .

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara by order dated 02.06.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.

5. It is submitted by Mr.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel that the petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2023 and charge sheet in the case at hand has been filed on 28.12.2021 citing the petitioner as an absconder.

6. It is stated by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the informant that alleging in action of the police in apprehending the accused, the informant approached this Court by filing CRLMP No.193 of 2021 and only in terms of order passed in said CRLMP the petitioner was finally taken into custody since 21.05.2023.

7. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail application i.e, ABLAPL No.14852 of 2020 and in spite of the order of this Court to surrender notwithstanding even extension being granted at the instance of the accused-petitioner, he chose not to do so and ultimately, as noted, he was taken into custody by execution of NBW(A).

8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the injuries have been categorized as simple, further continuance of the petitioner in custody is not warranted since he has no criminal antecedent.

9. Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail and it is their submission that in view of conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that he has scant regard for the orders passed by this Court. As such, he ought not to be released on bail

10. Referring to the injuries learned counsel for the informant submits with vehemence that two of the injuries are all on the vital part, hence the same ought to weighed with the Court while considering the bail application of the petitioner.

11. It is on record that the victim who initially was in the ICU, in the meanwhile has recovered.

12. Taking note of the filing of the charge sheet and that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent, this Court directs the petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin.

13. Additionally, it is directed that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin without express permission and shall appear before the jurisdictional police station once every week on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till conclusion of trial. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted to the Court in seisin.

14. It shall be open for the informant to seek variance of the order in the event there is any threat perception.

15. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

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