SURENDRA NATH SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second Bail Application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner along with his co -accused is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 302/120 -B/34, Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His earlier bail Application had been disposed of by this Court on 16th December, 2005 with an observation that an investigation was still in progress releasing the Petitioner on bail at that stage would create hindrance in the smooth investigation. This Court had directed the prosecution to complete the investigation as early as possible and submit the final form within the time stipulated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Liberty was also granted to the Petitioner to move for bail afresh. In consonance with the said observation the prosecution has submitted charge -sheet against the Petitioner, but then it has prayed to permit it to keep the investigation open in consonance with the provision of Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that some of the materials like diaries disclosing the names of different persons involved in tender Fixing, revolvers and other weapons, etc. which were seized outside the State have not yet come to the hands of Crime branch and the legal formalities are continuing.

(2.) IN its earlier judgment delivered on 16th December, 2005, this Court had elaborately dealt with the facts of the case against the Petitioner, different statements recorded during investigation, the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioner in connivance with other co -accused for eliminating the two deceased who appeared to have become threat tot he Petitioner, his co -accused, other contractor friends and Anil Chhotray (main accused). Without dilating the said facts, it would suffice to say that prima facie materials are available to show that a syndicate of the Petitioner, his co -accused and some other contractors vis -a -vis Anil Chhotray, a hardened criminal, was operating for the purpose of monopolizing the entire Tender Empire of the State, causing huge loss to the public exchequer and earning fabulous profit for themselves. The job of Anil Chhotray was to terrorise other prospective contractors intending to compete with the Petitioner and other members of the syndicate and prevent them from filling tenders by threatening to eliminate them if they did not succumb to the threat.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully submitted that there is no iota of evidence connecting the Petitioner with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the Petitioner is respectable citizen. He is also one of the highest tax -payers of the State and only on suspicion he cannot be kept behind the bars. Even, it is submitted that the so -called materials collected and relied upon by the investigating agency are all created documents, aimed at fulfilling the vendetta of the prosecution and some persons interested.