Chandra Sekhara v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 175, 177, 419, 420, 468, 471
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, this ABLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:50:05
Judgment
Mr. R. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and ORDER 13.03.2025 learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.T. Case No.883 of 2023 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Udala arising out of Udala P.S. Case No.326 of 2023 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 175/ 177/ 419/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 34 of IPC.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the entire allegations are based on documentary evidence. Hence, the Petitioner may be protected by pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.
Taking into account the nature of allegations and the highest punishment prescribed under Section 420 of IPC is 7 years, this Court has no iota of doubt that the authority shall scrupulously follow the guidelines laid down by 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.
Accordingly, this ABLAPL stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 20:50:05
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.