Dismissed

Zahed Ali@Zahid Ali v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC15 Sept 2015ABLAPL/10206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 381 IPC. The petitioner was accused of mishandling Rs. 25 lakhs. The court found a prima facie case and potential to abscond, deeming custodial interrogation necessary to recover money. It rejected the ABLA and vacated the interim order.

What did the court decide?

ABLAPL rejected; interim order dated 25.08.2015 vacated.

The petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence un der Section 381 of the IPC in C.T. Case No.2630/2015 of the court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar , arising out of Badagada P.S. Case No.140/2015.

It is apparent from the record that the petitioner was left alone in the vehic le, where the money approximately Rs.25,00,000/- were kept by the informant, when the informan t went to the Sub-Registrar Office. On his return, he did not find the money. The petitioner, who was employed as driver was also gone.

It is also apparent from the records that the petitioner has married twice and his first wife has been given a large amount of money and police has recovered approximately Rs.5,00,000/- from her. The statement of the wife of the petitioner also reveals that the peti tioner has obtained money in a land deal and gave Rs.5,00,000/- approximately to his wife. Thi s shows that the petitioner is involved in the case and a prima facie case is made out against him. It is further apparent from the record that the petitioner was residing at Khurda. He ha s a house at Baunshagali, Dist.Cuttack and his family are at Balasore. So there is every chanc e of the petitioner fleeing from justice as he has no permanent resident. The custodial interr ogation is necessary for recovering the cash and proof of the case. Considering the aforesaid facts, the ABLAPL is rejected. Interim order dated 2 5.08.2015 stands vacated.

Intheinterim,Misc.CaseitNo.8721isdirectedof2011thatthepetitioner no.2 shall not be disengage d only on the basis of attaining the age of 60 till the next date. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

Zahed Ali@Zahid Ali v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahed Ali@Zahid Ali v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lala Sarojkanta Chand Vs State of Orissa

Tikina Naik@Tukunath Naik Vs State of Orissa

Balaram Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Jogia@Jogendra Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Narayan Moharana Vs State of Orissa

Badani Gochhayat Vs State of Orissa