BAPI @ ARINDAM SARKHEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for releasing him on bail who is allegedly involved for the offences under Sections 302/120-B of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25 (1) (b) and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

(2.) The conspectus of the prosecution case in brief is that on 26.10.2016 at about 9.00 A.M. while the deceased Mahendra Kumar Swain being the Branch Manager of Seaways Shipping and Logistics Limited, Paradeep wing was proceeding to his office, the unknown criminals opened indiscriminate firing and also hurled bombs which led to the death of Mahendra Swain. It is alleged, inter alia, that there was enmity between the Seaways Shipping and Logistics Limited, Paradeep and the Orissa Stevedores Limited. It is the case of the prosecution is that co-accused Mahimananda Mishra was the owner of Orissa Stevedores Limited and due to previous enmity said Mahimananda Mishra earlier to this occasion had threatened the brother of the deceased and the deceased Mahendra Kumar Swain to take away his life. The brother of the deceased lodged F.I.R. During course of investigation it came to light that present petitioner being a friend of co-accused Mahimananda Mishra, has engaged one co-accused Rakesh Choubey to take revenge by eliminating the deceased because of latter's enmity with Mahimananda Mishra. The co-accused Rakesh Choubey and Manoj Gochhayat while confessing guilty before the police have also stated about the involvement of the present petitioner. Since he has got involvement prima facie with the commission of offence of murder of Shri Swain, who was arrested and forwarded to the Court.

(3.) Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case because he was allegedly close friend of co-accused Mahimananda Mishra who has got enmity with the deceased Mahendra Swain. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the F.I.R. and his name only finds place in the statement of the co-accused persons which are hardly admissible under law without any connected evidence to prove the crime. He further submitted that none of the witnesses examined have implicated the present petitioner with the commission of the offence.