JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : These are applications filed by Sankar Adeya @ Sankar Addhya @ Daku and Narayan Ghosh @ Nantu respectively under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail in G.R. Case No.831 of 2006 corresponding to Puri Sea Beach P.S. Case No.111 of 2006. 2. On 22.6.2006, an F.I.R. was lodged in Puri Sea Beach Police Station by one Prasanta Bal stating, inter alia, that on 20.6.2006, the informant along with 250 members of Banagaon Motor Association came to Puri and stayed at hotels, namely, Dolphin, Prince, Mayur, Konark and Sea King. One amongst the said members, namely, Tapas Mitra, who was a councillor of Banagaon Municipali¬ty, Ward No.2 and a member of the Trade Union also came along with them as an invited guest and stayed in hotel Mayur. On 22.6.2006, at about 9.20 P.M., the informant along with the said Tapas Mitra, Pallav Das, Swapan Seth and others, while sitting on the sea beach in front of hotel R.L., a man suddenly came to the spot and with a revolver fired at Tapas Mitra with intention to kill him. As a result, the said Tapas Mitra sustained bleeding injuries on his back and he was shifted to Puri District Hospi¬tal. But on the way, he died. The informant and others tried to catch hold of the person who fired at Tapas Mitra, but he was able to escape from the spot. The informant suspected that due to political rivalry and previous enmity, the said person killed Tapas Mitra. After investigation being made by the Investigating Agency, a charge sheet was submitted on 30.12.2006 in the afore¬mentioned G.R. Case under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against 8 (eight) accused persons. The said accused persons were arrested in a connected case being Banagaon P.S. Case No.146 of 2006 and were produced before the Court, before filing of the charge sheet. 3. While filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Offi¬cer stated that as the statutory period of 120 days was going to expire on the date of filing of the charge sheet, the charge sheet was submitted against the eight accused persons to face their trial and supplementary charge sheet will be submitted against the other five accused persons after completion of the investigation as per Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioners in the above case are not named as accused persons in the said chargesheet. However, it appears that subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Puri by his order dated 2.1.2007 took cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons named in the charge sheet. The petitioners were subsequently arrested on 30.3.2007 by the police personnel of Banagaon Police Station on requisition of Puri Sea Beach Police Station. 5. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed an applica¬tion for bail, being CRMA No. 3337 of 2007 before the Calcutta High Court and by order dated 5.4.2007 passed by the Calcutta High Court, in the said application, it was directed that the petitioners will be released on interim bail for a period of two weeks of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each for each of the accused persons, one of whom, must be a local, to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Banagaon. It was fur¬ther directed that after being released on bail, the petitioners will surrender before the appropriate Court, i.e., learned S.D.J.M., Puri within two weeks from the date of their release in connection with G.R. Case No. 831 of 2006. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners surrendered before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri on 20.4.2007 and prayed for bail. The prayer was rejected upon which the petitioners moved the learned Sessions Jude, Puri which also ended with a same result. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that after the accused persons named in the charge sheet were produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer. Mr. Mohanty also submitted that the said accused persons categorically stated before the Investigat¬ing Officer that on 18.6.2006, the accused Bapi Ray called them to the house of one Siramani Mandal where he told them that Tapas Mitra of Banagaon has gone to Puri and he should be finished there and for doing this, all of them would be paid Rs.5,000/- each and all of them agreed to the said proposal. It is further revealed from the statements that the accused Surajit demanded Rs.30,000/- for use of his vehicle and said Bapi Ray paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- to him. Subsequently, all of them came to Puri where Rajan Biswas killed Tapas Mitra. 6. It is further revealed from the statements that the accused Surajit demanded Rs.30,000/- for use of his vehicle and said Bapi Ray paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- to him. Subsequently, all of them came to Puri where Rajan Biswas killed Tapas Mitra. 6. It has been averred in the bail applications that the IIC of Puri Sea Beach P.S. received a wireless message from the I.I.C. in-charge, Chakda Police Station that the said Bapi Ray has been arrested on 23.1.2007 in connection a case under the said police station. Upon receiving such message, the Sea Beach Police Station approached the learned S.D.J.M., Puri to issue a production warrant upon which a wireless message was sent from the learned S.D.J.M., Puri to the A.C.J.M., Banagaon requesting him to spare the accused Bapi Ray. On 12.2.2007, a production warrant was issued against him pursuant to which the said Bapi Ray was produced before the learned S.D.J.M. on 16.2.2007 when the Investigating Officer requested for police remand. Bapi Ray was examined by the police and his statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 2.3.2007. 7. Mr. Mohanty vehemently argued that till the statements of said Bapi Ray were recorded, no allegation whatsoever has been made by any of the other accused persons with regard to the involvement of the present petitioners with the alleged offence. It was only the said Baip Ray, who in his statements before the police disclosed that the accused Satyajit Lohar asked him for arranging a vehicle to go to Puri for which he requested the accused Surajit to give the vehicle. On 18.6.2006, he told Rajan Biswas, Samit Dullav and Raja Bhoumik to go to puri and the accused Satyajit Lohar took all of them to Siramani Mandal’s house. At that place, four persons, namely, Kaka, Muna, Akash and Nalu were present and a feast was being held. Muna told him that Tapas Mitra has gone to Puri and he should be finished there for which all of them will be paid Rs.5,000/- each and Muna paid the advance to Surajit for use of his vehicle. For the first time, the said accused Bapi Ray stated that on that night one Swapan Mandal S/O. Gopal Mandal who was present in the feast told them that whatever money will be spent for killing Tapas Mitra, he will pay and Muna will carry the money later on. For the first time, the said accused Bapi Ray stated that on that night one Swapan Mandal S/O. Gopal Mandal who was present in the feast told them that whatever money will be spent for killing Tapas Mitra, he will pay and Muna will carry the money later on. Thereafter, they came to Puri. He further stated that before four days of Durga Puja, he went to the house of Swapan Mandal and at that time, the present petitioners were there in the house of Swapan Mandal along with Rajan Biswas and Kala and he heard from Rajan Biswas that the petitioners have paid money to Swapan Mandal. It was, on this statement, the petitioners have been apprehended. 8. Mr. Mohanty further strenuously urged that there is absolutely no prima facie material against the present petition¬ers so as to implicate them with the alleged crime and in support of his argument; he placed reliance on various statements record¬ed during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his attempt to show that there is no prima facie materials against the peti¬tioner, he made a thread bare analysis of all the statements recorded during investigation. Mr. Mohanty urged that though the prosecution alleges that the said deceased Tapas Mitra was killed due to political rivalry, such motive cannot be attributed to the present petitioners as the petitioner - Sankar Addhya was also a Councillor belonging to the Trinmul Congress and Tapas Mitra belonged to Congress (I), and these political parties have no rivalry in the municipal election. As such, according to him, the only party which can be benefited by the death of Tapas Mitra is C.P.I. (M) to which the said accused Bapi Ray belongs. 9. The other plank of argument of Mr. Mohanty was that Bapi Ray being a co-accused and a party to the alleged conspira¬cy, his statement cannot be taken into consideration under Sec¬tion 10 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as the said statement has been made after the alleged crime for which the conspiracy took place, was already committed and/or after the arrest of the co-conspirators. In view of the above, according to Mr. Mohanty, if the statement of the co-accused Bapi Ray is taken out of consideration, there is no other material to implicate the present petitioners. 10. Mr. In view of the above, according to Mr. Mohanty, if the statement of the co-accused Bapi Ray is taken out of consideration, there is no other material to implicate the present petitioners. 10. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the State opposing the prayer for bail made by the present petitioners, submitted that this Court in BLAPL No.23606 of 2007 rejected the prayer for bail made on behalf of the accused Surajit Ray @ Chutiki who stands on a similar footing like the present petitioners. He, therefore, submitted that the prayer for bail made by the peti¬tioners is liable to be rejected. 11. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions with regard to Section 10 of the Evidence Act, relied upon various case laws, more specifically, the decisions in the cases of Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 S.C. 1883 , State of Gujarat v. Mohammed Atik and others, AIR 1988 S.C. 1688, State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and others, etc. etc, AIR 1999 SC 2640 and Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 716 . Relying upon the aforesaid deci¬sions, Mr. Mohanty submitted that applying the ratio of the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it would be clear that the statements of the co-accused Bapi Ray with regard to the allegation of charge of conspiracy against the present petitioners is wholly inadmissi¬ble, more specifically, in view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. 12. In the case of Kehar Singh and others (supra), the Supreme Court was considering appeals against the order of con¬viction of some of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act against the other appellants. The Supreme Court analyzing Section 10 of the Evidence Act held that there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the con¬spiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirator. The Supreme Court analyzing Section 10 of the Evidence Act held that there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the con¬spiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirator. Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was first entertained, is relevant against the others not only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. 13. In the case of State of Gujarat v. V. Mohammed Atik and others (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the TADAA’). The State of Gujarat was the appellant in the said case against an order rejecting an application of the prosecution seeking permission to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during investigation of another crime. In the facts of the said case, while dealing with the applicabil¬ity of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Section 10 of the Evidence Act is founded on the principle of law of agency by rendering the statement or act of one conspirator binding on the other, if it was said during subsistence of the common intention as between the conspirators. If so, once the common intention ceased to exist any statement made by a former conspirator thereafter, cannot be regarded as one made “in reference to their common intention”. The Supreme Court further held that post-arrest statement made to a police officer, where it is a confession or otherwise, touching his involvement in the conspiracy would not fall within the ambit of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. 14. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu through Superintend¬ent of Police, CBI/SIT (supra), the Supreme Court was also in seisin over a case involving offence under the TADA Act. In that context, with regard to Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court held that the said Section is an exception to the general rule. The said Section, while permitting the statement made by one conspirator to be admissible as against another conspirator, restricts it to the statement made during the period when the agency subsists. In that context, with regard to Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court held that the said Section is an exception to the general rule. The said Section, while permitting the statement made by one conspirator to be admissible as against another conspirator, restricts it to the statement made during the period when the agency subsists. Once it is shown that a person became snapped out of the conspiracy, any statement made subsequent thereto cannot be used as against the other conspirator under Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Whether a particular accused had ceased to be a conspirator or not, at any point of time, is a matter which can be decided on the facts of that particular case. 15. In the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal by way of Special Leave preferred against the order of the Madras High Court by which the petition for bail filed by the petitioner was rejected. Being posed with a similar question with regard to applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act to the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court held that there should be a prima facie evi¬dence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts or statements can be used against his co-conspirators. The Supreme Court further held in the facts of the said case that where worth-while prima facie evidence apart from the alleged confessions have been brought to the Courts notice to show that the petitioner along with the co-accused was party to a conspira¬cy and the confessions of co-accused were recorded long after the murder, when the conspiracy had culminated, Section 10 of the Evidence Act cannot be pressed into service. In spite of the above position, the Supreme Court in the said case declined to give any conclusive finding with regard to the applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act holding that as the matter relates to grant of bail only, the said question of applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act may be examined more deeply at the appropriate stage. 16. There is no quarrel at the Bar with regard to the above propositions of law as laid down by the Apex Court. 16. There is no quarrel at the Bar with regard to the above propositions of law as laid down by the Apex Court. It is also an admitted position that the statement of the co-accused Bapi Ray in the instant case was recorded only after he was arrested as well as at a point of time when the conspiracy had already culmi¬nated. 17. However, this Court is not inclined to give any con¬cluded finding with regard to applicability of Section 10 of the Evidence Act to the facts of the present case and is also not inclined to accept the contentions raised by Mr. Mohanty that in view of the above position of law with regard to the applicabili¬ty of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the statement of Bapi Ray recorded much after the conspiracy which is already culminated, the said statement cannot be taken into consideration for implicating the petitioners with the alleged crime, these being applications for bail. The above contentions of Mr. Mohanty, if raised,may be considered at the appropriate stage of trial. 18. I have perused the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. I have also taken into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the State. Though Mr. Pradhan also relied upon several case laws in support of his contention that at the stage of bail, the statements of the co-accused can be taken into con¬sideration and if, it prima facie discloses a case against the petitioners, relying upon the same, the prayer for bail can be rejected, I am not inclined to discuss the case laws cited by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the State, in detail, at this stage. 19. Considering the materials available on record and, more specifically, the statement of the co-accused Bapi Ray and without entering into the question as to whether the said state¬ment can be accepted by applying the provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, as I find that there are some materials brought out during investigation against the present petitioners and the nature of crime alleged is a heinous one inasmuch as the peti¬tioners are not inhabitants of the State of Orissa, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioners and the prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, it is directed that the learned S.D.J.M., Puri shall take expeditious steps for commitment of the case to the Court of Session, in the event a supplementary/additional charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer against the present petitioners. 20. In the result, both the bail applications are dis¬missed. Applications dismissed.