Prahalad v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 296, 303(2), 351(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. All the offences save and except Section 303(2) of BNS are bailable in nature and the punishment prescribed in respect of offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS is for 5 years. Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of…
Judgment
Mr. S. Pattanaik , Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. R.B. Dash, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 28.02.2025
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioners are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.15 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, arising out of Khurda Sadar P.S. Case No.03 dtd.05.01.2025 for commission of alleged offences under Section 126(2)/296/115(2)/117(2)/303(2)/351(2)/3(5) BNS.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the co-accused (Ramesh Chandra Rout @ Kalia) has since been released on pre-arrest bail by order dated
04.002.2025 passed by this Court in ABLAPL No.1221 of 2025, the Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.
All the offences save and except Section 303(2) of BNS are bailable in nature and the punishment prescribed in respect of offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS is for 5 years. Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vrs. State of Bihar & another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and reiterated in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, as there is no imminent threat of arrest, the ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly. (V. NARASINGH) Soumya Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Mar-2025 13:06:35
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.