BHAGABAN BHOI ALIAS BEHERA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for bail by one of the six accused persons, it is submitted that other five accused persons are on bail and there being no overt act attributed to the petitioner, he should also be released on bail.

(2.) I called for the records of the other bail applications. It is true that one of the accused persons has been released on bail as there was no overt act attributed to him. Since this cannot be said to be a principle, said decision if not binding on me. Bail is personal to an accused. Allegation of commission of offence in this case is heinous in nature. Accordingly, in case those petitions would have been heard by me possibly, I might not have granted bail. Nature of commission of offence as alleged is to be taken note of while considering an application for bail for a non-bailable offence where normally accused is not entitled to bail unless special case is made out in respect of an accused. A person may not have committed an overt act. He may, however, be the ring leader with whom others joined with common intention or common object. In case, such persons are released on bail object of the legislation in making the offence non-bailable becomes frustrated. Wider power of this Court to grant bail should be exercised with great restraint.

(3.) In this case now the trial is in progress. This aspect has not been taken note of while granting bail to other accused persons. In case learned Sessions Judge would have granted bail, I would have called upon those accused persons to explain why the bail granted to them would not be cancelled. Since this Court has granted bail, I cannot exercise this power.