Pratap Kumar v. State of Odisha
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V NARASINGH
Provisions considered
- Odisha Excise Act, 2008 ss. 52(a)(i), 59
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the ABLAPL stand disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya
Judgment
Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Order No. 01.
ORDER 23.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with 2(a)CC Case No. 84 of 2022 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur arising out of P.R. No.31 of 2022-2023, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 52(a)(i) & 59 of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008.
Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.
Considering the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail. However, it is directed that the Petitioner may surrender before learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur connection with aforementioned case within one month from today. In the event of his surrender and motion for bail, the same be considered by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur on merits, in the first hour of the day. In the event of rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur the Petitioner is at liberty to move the higher forum for bail in the second hour on the same day.
On being so moved, the higher forum is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day on merit in accordance with law. ‘ The case diary shall be made available to the concerned courts to facilitate disposal of the bail application of the Petitioner and learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur is called upon to transmit the case record to the higher forum at the earliest in the event of rejection of such bail application.
Accordingly, the ABLAPL stand disposed of. U.C.C. as per rules. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Soumya
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.