(1.) HEARD Mr. B. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner, Babuni alias Subrata Patra, for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State per contra relying upon the decision in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Papu Yadav and another,* 2005 (1) Supreme 285 submitted that if successive bail application of a petitioner has been rejected, the Court has a duty to consider reason and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected and it has also a duty to record fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from one taken earlier. In reply to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in the case on the statement of a co -accused, the learned counsel for the State relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde and others, 2000 A.I.R. SCW 1617 submitted that such confession of a co -accused while considering a bail application cannot be thrown out on the ground that the same is not admissible in evidence. Further, relying upon the decision in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2005)30 OCR (SC)327, he submitted that if prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of the common object is admissible against all. This decision is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the submission that there is no material whatsoever collected during investigation to show that there exists prima facie evidence that the petitioner was a party to the conspiracy. From the facts of the case as disclosed and on perusal of the case diary produced before me, it is clear that heinous offence, such as, an offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. was committed.