The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6887 of 2024 Tuku Ranjan Swain ..... Petitioner State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Bhabani Shankar Dasparida, Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Adv. on behalf of Mr. Kaustuva Mohanty, Adv. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 23.07.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Order No. 02. 1. 2. Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The present bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.181 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.516 of 2024, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 286, 324, 326, 304, 34 of IPC read with 3, 4, & 5 of Explosive Substances Act along with Section 5 of the Orissa Fire Works and Louder Speaker (Regulation) Act. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Page 1 of 4. present Petitioner, who happens to be a licensed seller of fire crackers, is languishing in custody since 03.06.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and the final charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon. With regard to the allegation made in the FIR, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner possesses a valid license to sell and display fire crackers. So far, the mishap which occurred on 29th May, 2024 at Puri, is concerned, the fire crackers involved in the mishap have been alleged to have been procured from the present Petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely entangled in the Puri mishap case and the Petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was he involved in the bursting of the fire crackers which have caused the unfortunate loss of human life at the Puri mishap. In course of his argument learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. He further contended that since the Petitioner belongs to the locality, there is no chance of him absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail on any terms and conditions deemed proper by this Court, which the Petitioner undertakes to abide by while on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioner in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the State contended that the license which the Petitioner claims to possess was valid up to 31.03.2024 only. He further contended that the fire crackers which were issued by the petitioner on 29th May, 2024, and were involved in the unfortunate mishap which occurred later, were admittedly procured from the shop of the present Petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that at the relevant point of time the Petitioner was not authorized to sell the Page 2 of 4. fire crackers which were involvement in the mishap. It was further contended that the investigation is still on, therefore, in the event the Petitioner is released on bail he might abscond justice which might lead to delay in the conclusion of trial. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the other hand submitted that initially the license was valid up to 31.03.2024, however, the Petitioner had thereafter submitted an application for extension the said license. He emphatically submitted that the license issued in favour of the Petitioner for dealing with fire crackers was valid on the day the unfortunate mishap occurred, i.e. on 29th May, 2024. It was also contended that the Petitioner has sold the fire crackers on the basis of a valid license and that the present Petitioner is no way involved in the mishap which occurred on 29th May, 2024 at Puri. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner finally contended that the Petitioner has absolutely no role to play in such mishap. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking note of the fact that the Petitioner is a seller of the fire crackers from whom the fire crackers were procured, and the fact that the Petitioner was having a license to deal in the sale of fire crackers, and the fact that the Petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to following conditions:- i) shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on Page 3 of 4. bail; ii) shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O. as and when his presence is required and shall cooperate with the early conclusion of the investigation; iii) shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each and every date without fail save upon being prevented by any sufficient cause. iv) shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight for a period of three months, thereafter, once in a month till conclusion of the trial preferably on a 'Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M to 1.00 PM. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 8. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioner as well as the validity of the license to deal in fire crackers possessed by the present Petitioner. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is having any criminal antecedent or that the petitioner’s license to deal in fire crackers is not valid, then this bail order shall automatically stand revoked. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. S.K. Rout ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2024 17:51:02 Page 4 of 4.