In the case of In the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.1250 of 2024 Subash Muduli State of Odisha ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr.R.K.Routray, Advocate Opp. Party Mr.Tapas Kumar Praharaj, Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 12.07.2024 (Through hybrid mode) Order No. 03. 1. This is the second application of the petitioner filed on 07.02.2024 in connection with Burla P.S. Case No.579 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.Case No.914 of 2023, pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C.-I (City), Sambalpur, registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 186, 294, 307, 332, 341, 353, 394, 506/34 of IPC. It was filed on 07.02.2024, during pendency of BLAPL No.429 of 2024. 2. The earlier bail application of the petitioner, i.e., BLAPL No.429 of 2024 had been filed on 10.01.2024 alongwith two other accused persons, namely, Meru Jena and Deepak Kumar Dash. The same has been disposed of on 22.02.2024 allowing the prayer for Page 1 of 6 bail. 3. During pendency of BLAPL No.429 of 2024, this BLAPL has been filed on 07.02.2024 without disclosing in the certificate about the filing or pendency of BLAPL No.429 of 2024. 4.
Legal Reasoning
A memo for withdrawal was filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter he filed an affidavit stating that he learnt from the website regarding filing of the earlier bail application and its disposal on 22.02.2024 allowing the prayer for bail for which it has been rendered infructuous. 5. Another affidavit has been filed by one Gokula Muduli, son of late Alekh Muduli, who is the father of the petitioner and stating that at the time of filing of this bail application, the sole petitioner had filed a prisoner’s petition before the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Samalpur and engaged Mr.R.K.Routray, Advocate without knowledge of the deponent and that the deponent is old ailing and illiterate. 6. In the case of In the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of Orissa : 2024 (INSC) 46, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “20. In our opinion, to avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail: 1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail Page 2 of 6 application (s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided. (2) Details of any bail application (s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made. This court has already directed vide order passed in Pradhani Jani’s case (supra) that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders. In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light. (3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application (s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there. (4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly Page 3 of 6 like officers of the Court. (emphasis supplied) 21. Our suggestions are with a view to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies with reference to the bail applications being filed in the cases pending trial and even for suspension of sentence.” In the Standing Order No.1 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024 of this Court, it has been provided as follows: “1. Instructions for learned counsel/parties The following details shall mandatorily be mentioned in the application (s) filed for grant of bail U/s.438 & 439 of Cr.P.C. arising out of the same F.I.R.; (a) Details and copies of order (s) passed in the earlier bail application (s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided. (b) Details of any bail application (s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made. (c) Details of the bail application whether it is first, second or third and so on, below the cause title (in bold letters), for convenience of the court to appreciate the arguments in that light and enables the next higher court to appreciate the arguments later. Page 4 of 6 2. Instructions for Registry The Registry of the court shall annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application (s) in the crime case in question. The same system shall be followed even in the case of private complaints where no FIR number is there. The aforementioned instructions shall be followed scrupulously henceforth by all concerned and any deviation shall be indicated as defect by the Stamp Reporting Section. Non compliance of the instructions by the Registry shall be viewed seriously.” 7. In neither of the affidavits, satisfactory explanation for filing the second application during pendency of the earlier application has been given. 8. The father of the petitioner is a rustic person and may not be acquainted with the requirements of law, decisions and Standing Orders of this Court. 9. But it was the duty of the learned counsel to check from the website of the High Court about filing/disposal of earlier applications arising out of the same FIR and provide the same in the certificate of the bail application. 10. Normally I would have referred the matter to the Bar Council Page 5 of 6 of Orissa for appropriate disciplinary action, but I am inclined to take a lenient view as the earlier bail application - BLAPL No.429 of 2024 has been disposed before this BLAPL was listed. 11. The bail application is dismissed as infructuous without any further direction. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Bichi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 27-Sep-2024 16:30:17 Page 6 of 6