The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.6850 of 2024 1) Prasant Kumar Nayak@mita 2) Budhia Bhoi ..... State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Abhishek Dash Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – A.P.Das, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 02. 1. 2.
Decision
ORDER 30.07.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned 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 Petitioners for regular bail relating to Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.181 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.516/506 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 Petitioners that the present Petitioners, who happen to be a licensed seller of fire crackers, is languishing in custody since 30.05.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and the final charge-sheet Page 1 of 5. is likely to be filed soon. With regard to the allegation made in the FIR, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners possess 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 Petitioners. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture submitted that the Petitioners have been falsely entangled in the Puri mishap case and the Petitioners were 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 counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Petitioners do not have any criminal antecedent. He further contended that since the Petitioners belong to the locality, there is no chance of him absconding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners be released on bail on any terms and conditions deemed proper by this Court, which the Petitioners undertake to abide by while on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the release of the Petitioners in view of the nature and seriousness of allegation made against the Petitioners. Learned counsel for the State contended that the license which the Petitioners claim 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 Petitioners. Therefore, it was submitted that at the relevant point of time the Petitioners were not authorized to sell the fire crackers which were involvement in the mishap. It was further contended that the investigation is still on, therefore, in the Page 2 of 5. event the Petitioners are 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 Petitioners be rejected at this juncture. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners on the other hand submitted that initially the license was valid up to 31.03.2024, however, the Petitioners had thereafter submitted an application for extension the said license. He emphatically submitted that the license issued in favour of the Petitioners 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 Petitioners have sold the fire crackers on the basis of a valid license and that the present Petitioners is in no way involved in the mishap which occurred on 29th May, 2024 at Puri. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners finally contended that the Petitioners have absolutely no role to play in such mishap. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the license which was issued in favour of the father of the present petitioners was valid till 31.03.2024. Further referring to The Explosive Rules, 2008 learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the license which has been issued in favour of the licensee is required to be renewed from time to time. Rule 112 of said Rules which provides for renewal of license, provides that every application for renewal of license shall be so made so that it reaches the licensing Authority on or before expiry of the existing license. In the event the application submitted for renewal of license reaches the competent authority on or before the date of expiry of the previous license, then in view of Sub- rule 5 of Rule 112, the same shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews license or until an intimation of refusal of said renewal has been communicated to the applicant. On Page 3 of 5. such ground learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the deeming provisions contained in Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 112, it can be said that the license was valid and the same has not been rejected as has been provided in Sub-Rule-5 of Rule-112. 8. 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 Petitioners are a seller of the fire crackers from whom the fire crackers were procured, and the fact that the Petitioners were having a license to deal in the sale of fire crackers, and the fact that the Petitioners do not have any similar criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioners on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each 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 Petitioners shall also be subject to following conditions:- i) shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on 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. Page 4 of 5. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioners is subject to the condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the Petitioners as well as the validity of the license to deal in fire crackers possessed by the present Petitioners. In the event it is found that the Petitioners are having any criminal antecedent or that the petitioners’ 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. 10. The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Jul-2024 18:03:53