Jagannath Majhi @ Markanda @ Knadha v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

BLAPL NO.323 OF 2021 Jagannath Majhi @ Markanda @ Knadha ....

Petitioner Mr. S.K. Padhy, Advocate -versusState of Odisha ....

Opposite Party Mr. Samaresh Jena, ASC

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Order 13.12.2022 Order No.

02.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

2.

This is the successive journey of this Petitioner who is in custody in connection with Bolangir Sadar P.S. Case No.141 of 2013 corresponding to S.C. Case No.42/15/02 of 2014-15 pending on the file of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, running for the alleged commission of offence under sections147/148/302/506/120-B/149, I.P.C. in filing this application for grant of bail in the above mentioned case.

3.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner citing the long period of detention of the Petitioner in custody since 11.08.2013 instead of pressing for hearing of the bail application on merit, prays for its disposal by considering the grant of interim bail to the Petitioner for some period. He submits that this Petitioner being arrested in connection with the above noted case is in custody since 11.08.2013 and the trial is yet to conclude. He further submits that due to such long detention of the Petitioner in custody and nonconclusion of trial, his family members are suffering a lot and serious hardship is being caused to them. It is also his submission

// 2 // that till now his family members having somehow been able to manage the show, it is no more possible on their part to continue without the help and aid of this Petitioner at least for some time by their side at home. In view of all these above, when there remains no scope on the part of the Petitioner to flee from justice and tamper the evidence, he urges for grant of interim bail to the Petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the move in view of the serious nature of the allegations which have already surfaced in evidence during the trial through the lips of eye-witnesses. He, however, does not dispute that the Petitioner being in custody since 11.08.2013 as of now the trial has not crossed its midway. 5.

Considering the submissions made and further keeping in view the surrounding circumstances; it is directed that the Petitioner be released on interim bail for a period of eight weeks from the date of his actual release from custody on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the court in seisin of the case with further conditions that he will appear in person before the trial court on the date fixed during the period and will surrender before the said court after expiry of the period of interim bail without fail.

6.

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Himansu