Kabuli Rout v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 438, 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 294, 307, 323, 325, 364
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. Considering the nature of accusation and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, a case is made out for grant of pre- arrest bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Judgment
Opposite Party Mr. L. Samantray, Additional Government Advocate …. CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE Order No.
ORDER 28.02.2024 These matters are taken up through Hybrid mode.
These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) have been filed for grant of pre- arrest bail the petitioners in connection with G.R Case No.136/2024 arising out of Barang P.S. Case No. 55/2024, now pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Cuttack for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 307, 323, 325, 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
As both the cases arise out of the same criminal case, i.e., Barang P.S. Case No.55 of 2024, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order.
Heard Mr. Sougat Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the opposite party-State.
The informant is the wife of the victim, namely, Tapan Kumar Rout. The petitioner Kabuli Rout in ABLAPL No.1648 of 2024 and the petitioner Biguli Rout in ABLAPL No.1651 of 2024 are the first cousin of Tapan Kumar Rout. The petitioner Bikash Rout @ Gudu in ABLAPL No.1651 of 2024 is the son of Kabuli Rout.
The informant alleged in the FIR that she and her husband were quarreling with each other. When the accused Kabuli Rout came and intervened, his intervention was objected to by Tapan Kumar Rout. That led to some altercation between them whereafter, Kabuli Rout is said to have called his son Gudu and his brother Biguli Rout. It is further alleged that they assaulted the informant’s husband (Tapan Kumar Rout), took him away and thereafter the husband of the informant was found lying near a village river. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital for treatment.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that even if what has been alleged in the FIR is treated to be correct, no offence can be said to be made out punishable under Sections 307 and 364 of the IPC for the reason that it cannot be said that these petitioners had any intention to kill the husband of the informant. The allegations cannot be said to be constituting any offence punishable under Section 364 of the IPC. He argues that apparently, for a good cause with good intentions, the petitioner Kabuli Rout had interceded when the informant and her husband Tapan Kumar Rout were quarreling with each other.
Mr. L. Samantray, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the accusations against the petitioners are serious constituting offences punishable under Sections 307 and 364 of the IPC leading to fracture of right leg.
After having perused the records and considered submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, I am of the view that apparently, the occurrence, if any, had taken place at the spur of the moment. There is no malice alleged against the petitioner Kabuli Rout in his act of intervention when the couple were fighting with each other.
Operative part
Considering the nature of accusation and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, a case is made out for grant of pre- arrest bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender within six weeks from today, in the Court below, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Cuttack in connection with Barang P.S. Case No. 55/2024 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. This is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall present themselves before the police/Court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on their part to appear before the police/Court on two consecutive occasions, the bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled. Let an urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Feb-2024 17:00:45
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 438, 438(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 294, 307, 323, 325, 364.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.