The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.7710 of 2024 & BLAPL No.7393 of 2024 Jaga@ Amiya Kumar Swain …. Petitioner State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate -versus- Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Standing Counsel BLAPL No.7393 of 2024 Kulu Bhuyan and others …. Petitioners State of Odisha …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate -versus- Mr. T.K. Acharya, learned Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Decision
O R D E R Date of hearing : 12.11.2024 / date of judgment : 14.11.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual Order No. 06. /Physical Mode). 2. Since both bail applications have arisen out of G.R. Case No.374 of 2024 in connection with Jagannath Prasad P.S. Case No.242 of 2024 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Jagannath Page 1 of 7 Prasad in the district of Ganjam, then both the bail applications have been taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common order. 3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The petitioners are in jail custody since June, 2024 having been implicated under Sections 395/452/387 of the I.P.C., 1860 read with Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act on the allegations alleged against them(petitioners) by the informant that, she(informant) had installed an unit named as “Shree Laxmi Cement Concrete Product” in village Haripur under Gandadhar Grama Panchayat of Jagannath Prasad Police Station in the district of Ganjam. Five months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., i.e., five months prior to 16.06.2024, the petitioners were regularly demanding rupees one crore as “DADABADI”, from the informant, but, when she(informant) did not fulfill the above illegal demand of the petitioners, then they(petitioners) and their associates forcibly took away her JCB, 3DX bearing Registration No.OD-32-2550, electric poles amounting to cost of Rs.1,50,00.000/-(rupees one crore fifty lakhs) in total and intimated the same to the informant over Page 2 of 7 telephone telling that, unless, she (informant) pays their demanded “DADABATI”, they(petitioners) shall not allow her unit to run and also threatened her(informant) over phone to kill her along with her family members, for which, she(informant) and her family members concealed themselves in secret place for keeping her(informant) and her family members out from the sight of the petitioners and their associates. Thereafter, on dated 16.06.2024, she (informant) lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioners and their associates before the I.I.C., Jagannath Prasad Police Station alleging the aforesaid allegations against them. 5. Basing upon such F.I.R., the I.I.C., Jagannath Prasad Police Station registered a case vide Jagannath Prasad P.S. Case No.242 dated 16.06.2024 against the petitioners and started investigation. 6. During investigation, he (Investigating Officer) brought the petitioners on remand to this case from Jagannath Prasad P.S. Case No.241 of 2024 and Bhanganagar P.S. Case No.459 of 2024 in the month of June, 2024 and since then they(petitioners) are in custody. 7. During the course of hearing of the bail applications of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted for Page 3 of 7 liberal consideration of their bail contending that, investigation of the case has already been completed since 06.10.2024, the petitioners are in custody for about more than five months and the F.I.R. has been lodged five months after the alleged incident, to which, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State vehemently opposed contending that, they(petitioners) are habitual offenders, as they are involved in several cases, for which, the life of the informant and her family members shall remain in danger, in case of release of the petitioners on bail and there is every possibility of involvement of the petitioners in the similar nature of crime again, for which, they (petitioners) should not be allowed to go on bail. 8. When, it is forthcoming from the available police papers that, the petitioners are in jail custody for about more than five months and when during the staying of the petitioners inside the jail, the investigation of the case has already been completed, for which, the presence of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of any further investigation of the case may not be required and when, it is not the case of the prosecution that, the petitioners have not cooperated the investigation and when the F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant, five months after the alleged threats on her, as it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that, there was continuous threat Page 4 of 7 and demand by the petitioners since last five months and when, it is forthcoming from the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer that, all the alleged stolen properties have already been recovered and seized and when the main purpose/object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused persons during trial and when there is no certainty that, when the trial of the case against the petitioners shall be completed and when, the presence of the petitioners during trial of the case is not unsecured as, they(petitioners) are local men under the jurisdiction of Jagannath Prasad Police Station, then at this juncture, by taking the above factors into account, it is felt proper to allow them (petitioners) to go on bail with stringent conditions looking to the future safety and security of the informant, her family members, witnesses as well as the interest of the prosecution imposing conditions not to allow the petitioners to be involved with similar nature of crime in future. 9. Therefore, both the bail applications filed by the petitioners are allowed. 10. They(petitioners) are allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter on the following conditions, i.e.,:- Page 5 of 7 (i) They(petitioners) shall not involve with similar nature of crime in future. (ii) They shall remain present personally in the court in each date of the case till the conclusion of its trial. (iv) They shall not terrorize, coerce, influence or threat any witnesses to the prosecution, informant and her family members either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever at any stage of the proceeding of the case till the conclusion of its trial. (v) They(petitioners) shall appear before the I.I.C., Jagannath Prasad P.S. on the 2nd and last „Sunday‟ of each month hence within 10.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. till the conclusion of the trial of the case reporting about their non-involvement with any crime after their release on bail, but, in case of their failure to comply any one of the aforesaid conditions, the leaned court in seisin over the matter is authorized cancel their Page 6 of 7 respective bail orders outrightly without seeking any permission for the same from this Court. 14. Accordingly, both the bail applications filed by the petitioners are disposed of finally with a copy to the I.I.C., Jagannath Prasad Police Station for his information and to report before the court in seisin over the matter, in case of violation of any of the conditions by any of the petitioners for necessary orders. 15. Issue certified copy of this order to the petitioners on their proper application. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 14th of November, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 14-Nov-2024 18:07:29 Page 7 of 7