Pradeep Pattnaik v. Saroj Kumar Padhy
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
counsel for the Petitioner contended the Petitioner be released on bail
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 186, 272, 307, 341, 353, 506
- Orissa Excise Act, 2008
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil Page 2 of 2. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Apr-2024 12:31:28
Judgment
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 08.04.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.
The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail in connection with G.R. Case No.289 of 2024, arising out of Balangir P.S. Case No.87 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 353, 307, 186, 272, 506 of IPC, 52-A of Orissa Excise Act, 2008 read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is in custody since
Operative part
23.02.2024. It is further contended that the Petitioner has been progressed substantially. It was alleged that the Petitioner has been Page 1 of 2. falsely implicated in the present case. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the Petitioner contended the Petitioner be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are very serious in nature. Further, submits that against the Petitioner a warrant was issued, then the police team went to catch the Petitioner and the Petitioner attached to the police team and ran away from the spot. Therefore, in the event the Petitioner is released on bail there is a possibility that he might abscond from natural of justice. Therefore, on such ground, the bail application of Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. Further, submits that till date the investigation is still continuing.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter.
It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner be subject to the condition that the court below shall verify whether the injury report. In the event it is found that the injuries are grievous in nature, then this bail order shall automatically stand revoked
The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Anil Page 2 of 2. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Apr-2024 12:31:28
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel for the Petitioner contended the Petitioner be released on bail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 186, 272, 307, 341, 353, 506; Orissa Excise Act, 2008; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25, 27.
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.