The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.12521 of 2024 1) Sudipta Ranjan Pradhan 2) Premananda Pradhan 3) Jyotiranjan Pradhan 4) Kanhu Charan Pradhan 5) Anil Kumar Sahani 6) Madhusudan Sahani ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr. Rajib Kumar Rout State Of Odisha -versus- ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. - Mr. M.R. Mohanty, ASC M/s Hrudananda Mohapatra, Asima Samantaray, Suchitra Behera (For the Informant) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
Decision
ORDER 06.01.2025 (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Party. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 by the Petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in Page 1 of 5. connection with Pipili P.S. Case No.486 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.835 of 2024, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Pipili, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 109/115 (2)/ 118(1)/ 118(2)/ 126(2)/ 238/ 296/ 3(5)/ 303(2)/324(4)/351(3) of B.N.S., 2023. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contended that two of the co-accused persons who were arrested in the meantime, namely, Manomohan Pradhan and Sunil Kumar Pradhan, have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in B.A. No.271/992 of 2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, referring to the certified copy of the order dated 14.11.2024, which was filed in Court today, stated that that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, in his order, has categorically mentioned that the accused Premananda Pradhan and Jyoti Ranjan Pradhan, who are the Petitioner No.2 and 3 respectively, had participated in the assault and they have caused injuries. So far as the other Petitioners are concerned, there is no allegation of any assault or commission of any overt act against the other Petitioners. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Petitioners, except Petitioner No.2, who is having one criminal antecedent wherein he has been released on 41-A of Cr.P.C., do not have any criminal antecedent and that they belongs to the locality, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding. 5. Learned counsel for the Informant, on the other hand, Page 2 of 5. opposed the release of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail on the ground that the injured persons have sustained severe injuries and they were hospitalized for quite some time. He further contended that a case under Section 109 of the B.N.S., 2023 is clearly made out against the present Petitioners. On such ground, learned counsel for the Informant submitted that the bail application of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture. 6. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the release of the Petitioners on pre-arrest bail on the ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further submitted that some of the injured persons have in fact sustained injuries, which have resulted in them being admitted to the hospital and being treated as indoor patient. On such grounds, learned counsel State submitted that the bail application of the Petitioners be rejected at this juncture. 7. On perusal of the materials on record as well as the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in B.A. No.271/992 of 2024, it appears that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri has categorically found that the accused-Petitioner No.2-Premananda Pradhan and accused-Petitioner No.3-Jyoti Ranjan Pradhan have assaulted the husband of the Informant by means of an axe and crow bar respectively. As a result, the husband of the Informant has sustained grievous injuries. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners. However, it is directed that in the event the Petitioners No.1, 4, 5 and 6 Page 3 of 5. surrender before the Court in seisin over the matter within a period of four weeks from today and move an application for bail, the Court in seisin over the matter shall release them on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. While imposing conditions, the court in seisin over the matter shall also impose conditions whereby the Petitioners No.1, 4, 5 and 6 shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O. as and when their presence is required by the I.O. for the purpose of investigation; they shall not indulge in any criminal activities while on bail; they shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of posting of the case, if not prevented by sufficient cause; and they shall not harass/threaten/terrorize the Informant and her family members or any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever while on bail. Violation of any of the conditions imposed either by this Court or the court in seisin over the matter shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. So far Petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, they are directed to surrender before the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili in the aforesaid case in the first hour within four weeks hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider their 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 Petitioners No.2 and 3 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 Page 4 of 5. Petitioners No.2 and 3 on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record. 10. Case Diary be made available to the concerned courts on an application being filed prior to surrender of the Petitioners No.2 and 3. Records be transmitted to the higher forum at the cost of the Petitioners No.2 and 3, if applied for. 11. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. Debasis ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 08-Jan-2025 13:35:23 Page 5 of 5.