Court ruled bail based on identification in the TI parade; identified petitioners denied bail, while one with no identification granted bail.

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No. 21.07.2025

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Since these three bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Konark PS Case No.30 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No. 118 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC, Konark for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 120(B)/459/395/412 of the IPC r/w Sec.25/27 of Arms Act on the allegation of committing dacoity from the house of the informant and taking away gold ornaments and cash of Rs.21,00,000/-.

4. Heard, Mr. Abhishek Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No.8935 & 8897 of 2024, Mr. Soumya Sarathi Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in BLAPL No. 12179 of 2024 and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, FIR has been lodged against unknown persons, but the petitioner Hapiz Khan has not been identified in TI parade, whereas the petitioner Jagannath Puspalaka @ Pasupalak and Madhusudan Mohanty have been identified in TI parade. It is no doubt advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to extend parity to the petitioners since co-accused Pintu @ Subhrajit Parida , Aslam Khan and Bitu @ Biswajit @ Biswajit Das have been granted bail in BLAPL Nos.1578, 8852 & 8629 of 2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but this Court hardly accepts such plea of the petitioners because the order granting bail to such co-accused persons does not disclose about discussion of identification of such petitioners in the TI parade and therefore, parity cannot be extended to the petitioners.

6. In view of the above facts and after having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials placed on record, since the petitioners Jagannath Puspalaka @ Pasupalak and Madhusudan Mohanty have been identified in TI parade, this Court while not being inclined to grant bail to such petitioners considers it proper to admit the petitioner Hapiz Khan to bail.

7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner namely Hapiz Khan stands allowed, whereas the bail applications of the petitioners namely Jagannath Puspalaka @ Pasupalak and Madhusudan Mohanty stands rejected and accordingly the petitioner-Hapiz Khan is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner-Hapiz Khan shall not commit any offence while on bail, (ii) the petitioner-Hapiz Khan in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless their attendance are dispensed with. In case the petitioner-Hapiz Khan fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the petitioner-Hapiz Khan for offence U/S.269 of BNS,2023 in accordance with law (iii) the petitioner-Hapiz Khan shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating their present address of stay to the concerned Court and (iv) the petitioner-Hapiz Khan shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday in each month in between 10 A.M. to 12 Noon for six (06) months from the actual date of release from the custody.

The I.I.C. of Jurisdictional Police Station shall not detain the petitioner-Hapiz Khan unnecessarily after recording their attendance beyond the time as stipulated.

It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitione