LexNARAYAN GHOSH @ NANTU ETC. versus STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y ' (2008] 2 S.C.R. 370 A NARAYAN GHOSH @ NANTU ETC. -t V. STATE OF ORISSA (Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 4, 2008 . [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] -r Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 - Bail - Charge _1, of ·murder - High Gourt rejected the bail applications - c Correctness of - Held: Appellants were politically influential and financially strong and hence capable of influencing the witnesses - Moreover, they were residents of a District on lndo- Bangladesh border and likely to flee from the judicial process - Trial being at a precarious stage, High Court tightly rejected D their bail applications - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 -Arms Act - SS. 25127. Prosecution case was that the informant along with I ... 250 persons, who all were members of Motor Association ~- had come to Puri. Deceased who was a councilor of E Municipality was one of them. He was a member of trade union. On the fateful day, when informant, deceased and few other persons were sitting on the sea beach, a man came on the spot and fired at deceased and ran away. It . was expressed in FIR that the deceased was murdered F due to the political rivalry and previous enmity. On the + basis of investigation, some persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed against eight accused persons. After further investigation as per s.173(8) Cr.P.C., the ADJM, Puri took cognizance of offences under ss.302/34 G IPC as also under ss.25/27 of Arms Act against accused persons and as such they were arrested. >.c The accused-appellants were released by Calcutta ~ High Court on interim bail on certain conditions and they were further directed to surrender before the SDJM, Puri. H 370 ~ NARAYAN GHOSH @ NANTU ETC. v. STATE OF 371 ORI SSA The appellants accordingly surrendered and prayed for A the bail. However, that prayer was rejected. The Sessions Judge and High Court also dismissed the bail applications. Hence these appeals. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated on account of their alleged political differences; , 8 that there was absolutely no evidence to support the story ""_. of conspiracy; that the three witnesses who were set up in support of the conspiracy were already examined before the Sessions Court and all of them had turned hostile; and that even otherwise there is absolutely no C material implicati_ng the appellants.and, therefore, they are liable to be released on bail. It was also pleaded on behalf of the appellant 'S', that he was suffering from a serious kidney disor.der and was in precarious health. Dismissing the appeals, the Court D HELD: The appellants should not be released on bail at this stage. It is an admitted position that the Sessions trial had almost come to an .end, and there are only few more witnesses to be examined. The prosecution has E expressed that the appellants are politically influential and ·· financialJy strong and are capable of influencing the witnesses. It has also been expressed that the appellants are residents of Banagaon District which is on the Bangladesh border and, therefore, there is every F likelihood of their fleeing from the judicial process. It was admitted during the debate that some witnesses who were the witnesses for conspiracy were examined and had to be declared hostile. If that is so, that is all the more reason not to release the appellants when the trial is at a G precarious stage. It would be for the trial court to consider -.- and appreciate the evidence which comes before it in support of the plea of conspiracy and to arrive at the correct finding. This court would not, at this stage, comment upon the nature of the evidence one way or the H f 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. -+- A other. In that view of the matter, the High Court was not in error in refusing the bail to the appellants. However, in view of the plea regarding the health of appellant 'S', the directio'n is passed to make available to him all the timely medical help. [Paras 9-12] [375-G-H; 376-A, D; 377-E-G] ' B Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 3 sec 13 - referred to. 'I( . ;. CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDl~Tl_ON: CriminalAppeal No. 251 of 2008. c From the final Judgment and order dated 4.9.2007 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in BLAPL No. 4487/2007. WITH Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2008. D Basudev Panigarh, Uday Umesh Lalit, Deepak Kumar Jena, Min
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.