ORDER 11.10.2007 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner. Charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for alleged commission of offence under Sections 302/149 IPC wherein the petitioner was shown as an absconder. In the meantime, the case was split up and all the other co-accused persons faced trial in S.T.Case No. 7 of 2005 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh. The said sessions case was disposed of by judgment dated 2.3.2006, the certified copy of which has been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the said judgment that P.W.7 was cited as an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, consisting the deposition of the said witness, came to the conclusion that as the said P.W.7 stated that he reached at the spot after the occurrence, his statement cannot be considered to be an eye witness to the occurrence. Therefore, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Ramananda @ Rama Mandal @ Rupsingh Naik, reported in (2007) 37 OCR 159 and in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, reported in 2005 (I) OLR (SC) 354, submits that in similar situation, it has been held by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid deci¬sions that no purpose will be served in further proceeding with the case when the main accused has been charged and the split up case, in which the co-accused persons faced trial, has ended in acquittal. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), the Apex Court was considering the case, where Syed Modi, who was a Badminton Player of International fame, was murdered. In the case case, the respondent was implicated with the offence or murder and conspiracy and it was the prosecution case that the main accused Dr. Sanjaya Singh in order to do do away with Syed Modi conspired with the respondent, who, in turn engaged the other accused persons who committed the crime. The main accused Dr. In the case case, the respondent was implicated with the offence or murder and conspiracy and it was the prosecution case that the main accused Dr. Sanjaya Singh in order to do do away with Syed Modi conspired with the respondent, who, in turn engaged the other accused persons who committed the crime. The main accused Dr. Sanjaya Singh was discharged came to the conclusion that the order of discharge by the Court of Session along with Mrs. Amita Kulkarni, who was the wife of Syed Modi. The Apex Court while deciding the appeal against the order of the High Court by which the respondent was discharged passed in favour of the main accused having attended finality, the High Court was fully justified in holding that no purpose will be served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent therein. Considering the deposition of one of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the trial, the Supreme Court held that continu¬ance of the criminal proceeding aganst the respondent therein would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, and, ac¬cordingly, confirmed the order of the High Court by which the said proceeding was quashed. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the State on the contrary, relying upon the 161 statements of the eye witness, P.W.7, submitted that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner. Considering the above submissions, as I find that the statement of the alleged eye witness, P.W.7 has been disbelieved by the learned Court in the split up trial, which ended in acquittal, I am of the view that there is no prima facie material to implicate the present petitioner with the alleged offence. Of course, this being an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and not an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding, it differs from the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that respect. Nonetheless, applying the ratio of the said cases to the facts of this case, it would be evident that the accused persons had committed the crime. Nonetheless, applying the ratio of the said cases to the facts of this case, it would be evident that the accused persons had committed the crime. In the case of Ramananda @ Ram Mandal @ Rupsingh Naik (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court taking into consideration that in a split up case, the trial having ended in acquittal held that, no useful purpose would be served in continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner who has not faced trial and this would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Had the petitioner approached this Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding pending against him, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases, I am sure, this Court would have quashed the said proceedings. Taking the above position of law and the facts of the case into consideration, I am of the opinon that this is a fit case, where the petitioner should be granted bail. I accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T.Case No. 14 of 2007 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 220 of 2004, on such terms and conditions, as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge may deem just and proper. The BLAPL is accodingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. BLAPL disposed of.