The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.11508 of 2024 1) Jaleswar Naik 2) Padaman Naik 3) Lai Majhi 4) Govinda Majhi 5) Subasingh Majhi 6) Laxman Majhi 7) Hiramal Naik 8) Shyam Kumar Naik 9) Kantilal Naik State Of Odisha ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Prasanta Kumar Jena -versus- ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. M.R.Patra, A.S.C. Mr Subir Palit, M/s Gokulananda Sahu, Sritam Mohanty CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.12.2024 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 3. The Petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/ 148/ 341/ 323/ 324/ 307/ 294/ 427/ 395/ 506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R.Case No.45/2024 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Kashipur, arising out of Kasipur PS case No. 12 dated 12.01.2024. Page 1 of 5. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who basically belong to the tribal community, have had their land acquired for the purpose of establishment of a factory in the district of Rayagda. The petitioners are protesting lawfully for payment of compensation for the acquisition of their land. He further contended that even though the petitioners have been protesting lawfully, they have been falsely implicated at the instance of the company in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there are no specific allegations of commission of any overt act on the part of the present petitioners. He further contended that several false cases have been registered at the instance of the company to restrain the petitioners from leading to any arbitration against the company with regard to non-payment of compensation amount. He further argued that in the process the lawful and democratic right of the petitioners to raise their voice and protest against the illegal action of the authorities and the company involved in the present case is being taken away by implicating them in a plethora of false cases, including the present one. He further submitted that the petitioners belong to the locality, therefore there is no chance of their absconding. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail on any stringent terms and condition which the petitioners undertake to abide by while on bail. 5. Mr. S.Palit, learned senior counsel for the informant on the other hand objected to release the petitioners on bail. He further contended that the injured has sustained grievous injuries and in the said context he referred to the injury report. He further submitted that the petitioners are belonging in the locality as a result of which the company which has invested huge amounts of money is unable to Page 2 of 5. operate the mines. As a result of the same the company has incurred huge losses. He further submitted there are several criminal antecedents against the present petitioners including one that has been registered after they were protected by interim order of this Court. On such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on pre- arrest bail at this stage. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the release of the petitioners on bail on the ground that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are grave and serious in nature. He further submitted that the injured has sustained grievous injuries. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the conduct of the petitioners has given rise to discord and disruption of the public order in the locality. He further expresses his apprehension regarding the release of the petitioners on pre-arrest bail on the ground that there is every likelihood that the petitioners might indulge in similar criminal offences if enlarged at this stage. He also contended that investigation is still on therefore, the release of the petitioners would cause delay in conclusion of the investigation. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties on a careful examination of the case diary as well as materials on record and further taking note of the surrounding facts and circumstances as well as the statement of the injured recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., this Court observes that although the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. as well as in the 164 statement to be present at the spot of occurrence. However, the injured has categorically stated in his 164 statement that all the petitioners except Shyam Sundar Naik @ Shyam Kumar Naik have assaulted by means of fist blows. So far as the accused Shyam Sundar Naik @ Shyam Page 3 of 5. Kumar Naik is concerned, it is alleged by the injured that he has assaulted by means of a stone, causing bleeding injuries. The medical examination report confirms the fact that the injured has sustained bleeding injury on his head, which corresponds to the allegation made by the injured in his 164 statement. 8. Taking into consideration the entirety of the prosecution allegation as well as the materials on record, although this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however it is directed that in the event the petitioners, except Petitioner No.8, surrender and move for bail within a period of four weeks from today, they shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, but subject to verification of criminal antecedent of the Petitioners except Petitioner No.8. In the event it is found by the learned court below that the Petitioners are having more than two criminal antecedents, then this order shall automatically stand revoked with regard to those Petitioners. 9. The release of the petitioners except Petitioner No.8 shall also be subject to following conditions:- I) shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I.O. as and when their presence is required and shall cooperate with the early conclusion of the investigation. II) III) shall not indulge in similar criminal offences while on bail. shall not enter the factory premises and shall not come within a radius of 500 meters of the company premises. IV) Shall appear before the local Police Station once in a Page 4 of 5. fortnight for a period of four months preferably on ‘Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial. 10. Furthermore, on the submission of the learned counsel, so far as the Petitioner No.8 is concerned, he is given liberty to surrender before the learned J.M.F.C., Kashipur in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner No.8 may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner No.8 on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable. 11. Case Diary be made available to the concerned courts. Records be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioner No.8, if applied for. 12. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. ( A.K Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Dec-2024 10:42:46 Page 5 of 5.