BIKRAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Purusottampur P.S. Case No.446 of 2021 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 26 of 2022 (G.R. Case No.440 of 2021) pending in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam, for commission of offences punishable U/S.147/148/294/506/302/ 149 of IPC, on the main allegation of smashing a stone on the head of the deceased to commit murder, along with co-accused persons.

(2.) In the course of hearing, Mr. Debasis Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although FIR has been lodged against seven persons, but charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner and accordingly, the present petitioner was facing the trial, but after sometime, six other co-accused persons have been arrayed as the accused persons by the learned trial Court in exercise of power U/S.319 of CrPC, however, such order was challenged before this Court and the same is pending and in the meantime, the six co-accused, who have been arrayed as accused persons, have also obtained interim protection order from this Court, but whatever may be the allegation appearing against the petitioner, it is only the allegation and it cannot be possible that seven persons can inflict one injury by assaulting the deceased with rock stones and the petitioner having detained in custody for last four years, may kindly be granted bail, since this Court in exercise of power U/S. 483 CrPC has directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial in BLAPL No. 6948 of 2024 within three months as on the date of passing of such order i.e. on 7/11/2024.

(3.) This Court has of course the privilege to go through the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 as produced by learned counsel for the petitioner, but the allegation against the petitioner is serious and for committing murder of the deceased. No doubt it is advanced that this Court in BLAPL No. 6948 of 2024 has directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months, but in P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka; (2002) 4 SCC 578, a Constitutional Bench of seven Judges of the Apex Court has made it clear that it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all proceeding. Further, on perusal of the record, it would go to say that the informant has brought allegation against the petitioner and he is claimed to have been an eye witness to the occurrence. Besides, right now the trial has progressed a lot and the petitioner is also having criminal antecedents, which have not been disclosed in the bail application of the petitioner.