JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Hearing on bail was taken up on 8.5.2017, 11.5.2017, 15.5.2017, 17.5.2017, 19.5.2017 and 20.6.2017. 2. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for releasing him on bail for his involvement in the alleged offences under Sections 341/307/120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 9 (b) of I.E. Act. 3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that one Abhaya Kumar Bhatta, a lawyer while coming from the Court at about 7.30 P.M. on 20.9.2013 with his relative Hadu @ Susanta Kumar Pal in his Car, near Khannagar High School four Motorcyclists came and one of them hurled bomb towards him and also fired gun for which both Abhaya and Susanta got multiple injuries on their persons. Since Abhaya was driving the vehicle, he could not keep balance and met an accident. However, the vehicle stopped and thereafter they were shifted to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. In the Hospital they were treated as Indoor patient and after some time, they were discharged. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that there was a rift with regard to the land dispute between Purnananda Padhiary and his brother and he suspected that due to such land dispute his life was in a state of danger and consequently there was such attempt on his life to kill. This is a case of 2013. Thereafter the investigation proceeded. During investigation, the witnesses were examined. Police also in the year 2017 arrested co-accused Ganesh Sahoo, who disclosed the name of the petitioner to have instigated him to cause death of injured Abhaya Bhatta for the simple reason that the present petitioner was interested to purchase that land of Padhiary brothers for which the injured was also interested. However, at present the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and co-accused Ganesh Sahoo for the offences as alleged above. SUBMISSIONS 4. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the F.I.R. nor the statement of the witnesses clearly mention about the role of the present petitioner either as conspirator or sharing intention of the co-accused Ganesh Sahoo. SUBMISSIONS 4. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that neither the F.I.R. nor the statement of the witnesses clearly mention about the role of the present petitioner either as conspirator or sharing intention of the co-accused Ganesh Sahoo. He further stated that the occurrence took place on 20.9.2013 whereas the petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2016. Since these four years have elapsed, investigation has been only kept open and the present petitioner being in custody in another case has been arrested in this case. He further stated that the statement of Abhaya Bhatta initially recorded has not disclosed about the complicity of the present petitioner but when recorded later, has given another picture showing the complicity of the present petitioner. So, he submitted that the Police has tried his best to make false allegation against the present petitioner to deny bail. He further submitted that the statements of Rabindra Kumar Padhiary, Kedarnath Swain and Upendra Kumar Mohapatra do not show the involvement of the petitioner in any manner. 5. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that co-accused Ganesh Sahoo has been arrested on 4.1.2017 and on the same day his confessional statement has been recorded where the present petitioner has been knowingly made as co-accused. According to him the statement of the co-accused was extracted after his arrest although the petitioner is not in any manner involved in this case. He further submitted that the injuries have not been substantiated by the prosecution and the statement of Abhaya Bhatta hardly speak about any conspiracy by the present petitioner. He submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Police only shows that present petitioner being the owner of the OSL Company had expressed his desire to purchase the land of Shri Padhiary and due to dissention between Punananda Padhiary and his brothers, again the meeting took place for return of the money to the petitioner and accordingly about Rs.45 lakhs has been returned to the present petitioner by Padhiary and the dispute was closed for which there is no any occasion to point out any finger to the involvement of the present petitioner. Mr. Tulsi further submitted that when there is no dispute at all, the involvement of the present petitioner shown by the Police is just to malign his reputation and his business. Mr. Tulsi further submitted that when there is no dispute at all, the involvement of the present petitioner shown by the Police is just to malign his reputation and his business. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses are contradictory with each other about the occurrence as some witnesses state about act of hurling the bombs by four persons and statement of rest witnesses show that only two motorcyclists came and one of them hurled the bomb. So, he submitted that this is a concocted story prepared by the prosecution to deny the right to bail of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Tulsi cited the decision in Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 31 where Their Lordships observed that discoveries unrelated to confessions sought to be made admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and would not surmount bar of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Such approach is not permissible in law. Inadmissible confessions made to police officer or in police custody cannot be made basis of conviction with the aid of other connected evidence available on record. He also cited the decision reported in Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri and others v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 716 where Their Lordships observed that the statement of witnesses recorded one year after the occurrence cannot be taken into consideration and such statement should be discarded. He also cited the decision reported in 2005 (2) SCC 13 ; Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal V. State of Tamil Nadu where Their Lordships have observed at paragraph-15 in the following manner: “15. Shri Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the respondent, has also referred to certain other pieces of evidence which, according to him, showed the complicity of the petitioner with the crime in question. He has submitted that the petitioner had talked on phone to some of the co-accused. The material placed before us does not indicate that the talk was with A-6 and A-7 who are alleged to have assaulted the deceased or with A-5, A-8, A-9 and A-10, who are alleged to have been standing outside. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are two other witnesses who have heard the petitioner telling some of the co-accused to eliminate the deceased. The names and identity of these witnesses have not been disclosed on the ground that the interrogation is still in progress. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are two other witnesses who have heard the petitioner telling some of the co-accused to eliminate the deceased. The names and identity of these witnesses have not been disclosed on the ground that the interrogation is still in progress. However, these persons are not employees of the Mutt and are strangers. It looks highly improbable that the petitioner would talk about the commission of murder at such a time and place where his talks could be heard by total strangers”. 7. Finally Mr. Tulsi submitted that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Upadhyay v. State of U.P. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).143/2016) have been pleased to observe that in 25 criminal cases registered against the petitioner of that case, when the petitioner has been acquitted in 11 cases, the concession of bail should be allowed. He further submitted that with regard to the criminal antecedents against the present petitioner, in most of the cases the petitioner is on bail. So, he submitted to release the petitioner on bail with any condition as deemed fit and proper. 8. Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the F.I.R. has narrated about the incident and same has also led to the investigation of the case. During investigation, the injured persons have been examined by the Doctor where the Doctor found severe bleeding injuries in different parts including vital parts of the body of injured. He further submitted that there are statement of the witnesses Upendra Kumar Mohapatra and Rabindra Bastia recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicating the clear complicity of the present petitioner because in a meeting just before the occurrence the present petitioner has threatened the injured Abhaya Bhatta of dire consequence as he had to return the money to Sri Padhiary. He further submitted that the statements of these witnesses are clear enough to show the conspiracy made by the present petitioner to make attempt on the life of the injured persons. 9. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the statement of Sana and Bapina, who are witnesses to the occurrence have clearly narrated the occurrence. They have identified the co-accused Ganesh Sahoo. 9. Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the statement of Sana and Bapina, who are witnesses to the occurrence have clearly narrated the occurrence. They have identified the co-accused Ganesh Sahoo. According to him, Sana and Bapina had admitted that Ganesh Sahoo has made extra-judicial confession before them about the threatening of the present petitioner in a meeting to Abhaya Bhatta to kill him. Apart from this, they narrated that the statement of co-accused Ganesh Sahoo is clear enough to show that the present petitioner had instigated him to cause death of Abhaya Bhatta and the co-accused Ganesh Sahoo when could not complete the murder has also narrated before the petitioner about his failure to kill him. In addition to that, he submitted that there are six criminal antecedents against the petitioner for which he should not be released on bail. Both the parties admitted that charge-sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner. DISCUSSIONS 10. Considered the submissions of the respective counsel. It is reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 (Niranjan Singh and another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others) where their Lordships observed at para-3 in the following manner:- “xx xx xx Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself”. 11. It is also reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Papu Yadav and another) where their Lordships also directed to consider the relevant factors before granting bail and Their Lordships at para 11 have observed in the following manner: “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge; (See Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh; (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Puran Vs. Rambilas; (2001) 6 SCC 338 ).” 12. Similarly the principles of bail are reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another where their Lordships have observed at para-9 in the following manner: “9.We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) Nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi; (2005) 8 SCC 21 , Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi; (2001) 4 SCC 280 , and Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh; (2002) 3 SCC 598 ). 13. Keeping in mind of all the principles made above, let me find out whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail or not. No doubt the F.I.R. speaks about the incident of 2013 and in the F.I.R. it is clearly mentioned that while the injured Abhaya Bhatta was returning by his Car bearing Registration No.OR-05-AE-6247 along with his brother-in-law Hadu @ Susanta Pal in the front seat, two Motorcycles came speedily and overtook the Car and blocked the same in front of it. It also appears from the F.I.R. that the Motorcyclists hurled bomb towards them and fired gun for which both of them sustained multiple bleeding injuries on their person. Yet Abhaya Bhatta drove the vehicle and it hit somewhere but did not know what happened thereafter. Finally he found himself in the Hospital. The Doctor’s reports as appears from the Case Diary show that both the injured persons have sustained multiple bleeding injuries on their person. 14. The statement of Abhaya Kumar Bhatta recorded later shows that some years before his brother has also been murdered but the culprits have not been apprehended so far. Finally he found himself in the Hospital. The Doctor’s reports as appears from the Case Diary show that both the injured persons have sustained multiple bleeding injuries on their person. 14. The statement of Abhaya Kumar Bhatta recorded later shows that some years before his brother has also been murdered but the culprits have not been apprehended so far. His statement further shows that the present petitioner had desired to purchase the land from one Rabi Padhiary at Bhanpur but due to opposition by the injured that could not be successful and there was a meeting held by the present petitioner in his office where the present petitioner and other persons were present. In that meeting the present petitioner had told him not to obstruct in any way to occupy the vacant land but the injured did not agree for which the present petitioner has threatened him with dire consequence. Further he stated that there was exchange of land between his father and the father of Purnananda Padhiary but due to dispute between Padhiary brothers injured could not get the land and on the other hand Purnananda Padhiary made agreement with petitioner to sell same for Rs.45 lakhs. Since other brothers did not agree, Rabindra had to return money to petitioner, resultantly petitioner kept grudge over injured Abhaya. So, he has strong conviction that the present petitioner has engaged the co-accused persons to kill him. Statements of Rabindra Padhiary and Kedarnath Swain support such statement of injured Abhaya Bhatta. 15. The statement of Abani Mohapatra shows that there was meeting where in his presence the present petitioner asked the injured to get rid of this land dispute otherwise he has to face the dire consequence. Similarly the statements of Rabindra Bastia and Upendra Mohapatra recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. show that before the occurrence in 2013, the present petitioner had threatened the injured not to come on his way otherwise he has to face the consequence. No doubt the statement of Sana and Bapina are also relevant to know that co accused Ganesh Sahoo has made extra-judicial confession before them to implicate the present petitioner because the present petitioner has asked him to kill Abhaya Bhatta and accordingly he has also arranged bombs for Ganesh Sahoo and Ganesh Sahoo used the same. No doubt the statement of Sana and Bapina are also relevant to know that co accused Ganesh Sahoo has made extra-judicial confession before them to implicate the present petitioner because the present petitioner has asked him to kill Abhaya Bhatta and accordingly he has also arranged bombs for Ganesh Sahoo and Ganesh Sahoo used the same. No doubt the extrajudicial confession has to be decided during trial but at present same has got relevancy to consider bail. 16. On going through the further materials, co-accused Ganesh Sahoo has also made confessional statement before the Police stating that present petitioner has explained the difficulty before him and asked him to kill Abhaya Bhatta while he was returning from his Court work every day via Khannagar and accordingly the petitioner has given him four hand made bombs and as per planning Ganesh Sahoo has hurled the bombs to the injured persons causing serious injuries on their person and subsequently he has narrated the incident to witnesses Sana and Bapina. No doubt the statement of Ganesh Sahoo is a co-accused statement which is a weak piece of evidence but in view of the decision of Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar; AIR 1964 SC 1184 it lends assurance to the evidence on record. 17. No doubt from the material it is evident that injured persons got injuries due to bomb blast and firing by gun and petitioner has threatened the injured with dire consequence due to land dispute in which petitioner and injured both are interested. Extra-judicial confession of co-accused Ganesh Sahoo corroborates above material. So, confession of co-accused Ganesh Sahoo under Section 30 of the Evidence Act lends sufficient assurance to above evidence to show complicity of the petitioner as conspirator. 18. Of course, the argument of Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate has got force to the extent that after four years of incident the petitioner and co-accused have been arrested. From the material it appears that some witnesses have been examined in 2013 and some have been examined in 2017. Since offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. committed by any person other than live convict has got maximum sentence for imprisonment for life and no time limit is prescribed for completion of investigation in such major offence as long as accused is not arrested, the argument of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has got least force to grant bail. 19. Of course, the decisions cited by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner with regard to Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri and others (supra) that the statement of the witnesses recorded after one year of the occurrence cannot be believed. Such question will arise about the admissibility or credibility when the evidence will be adduced before the court below. However, the Court is of the view that sufficient materials are there to find out a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe the complicity of the present petitioner with the commission of the offence. Apart from this, in Jayendra Saraswati’s case (supra) offence of conspiracy has been discussed. But facts of present case being different, bail is considered in the present material. 20. Both the parties have admitted that charge-sheet has been submitted. In serious offence even if charge-sheet is submitted, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court cannot take lenient view to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 21. Of course, there are criminal antecedents against the present petitioner as per memo filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate and countering that learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner is on bail in some cases. Thus, petitioner has got criminal antecedent of similar major offences which are weighed against petitioner to go on bail. 22. In terms of above discussion and having found prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that petitioner has complicity with the commission of offence, I am loath to grant bail to the petitioner. For the larger interest of public and society, petition for bail being devoid of merit stands rejected. 23. Before parting this case, the Court place on record of its appreciation to the lucid submission of Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate on different decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the same time, learned Additional Government Advocate has candidly brought the facts to the knowledge of the Court. However, for abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. At the same time, learned Additional Government Advocate has candidly brought the facts to the knowledge of the Court. However, for abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the trial court seized of the trial on the evidence adduced before it. The BLAPL is dismissed accordingly.