Debendra Boitai v. State of Orissa

 22.11.2016ABLAPL No.14483 of 2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Ms. Manasi Pa
nda, learned counsel appearing for the informant by filing Vakalatnama in Court today.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offences under S
ections 143, 341, 294, 323, 324, 354 and 506/149 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) a
nd 3(2)(va) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act in G.R. Case No. 1549 of 2016, which has been conv
erted to Special Case No.147 of 2016 of the court of Special Judge, Bhadrak, arising out of Bh
andari Pokhari P.S. Case No. 133 of 2016.
3. It is apparent from the records that informant Umakanta Boitai has filed a writ petiti
on bearing W.P.(C) No.4425 of 2016 adding the petitioners as opposite parties in addition to T
ahasildar, Bhandaripokhari, Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak and I.I.C., Bhandaripokhari P.S.
 It is apparent from the records that the Division Bench presided by Honble the Chief Justice
have observed in order dated 18.03.2016 that the petitioner was granted a lease for the sand s
airat on 4.11.2015 for excavation of sand which is valid for a period of five years. It was st
ated by the petitioners in that case that the private opposite parties, who are villagers of t
he nearby villages are not permitting the petitioner to excavate sand from the quarry even tho
ugh the petitioner has valid lease in his favour. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Col
lector, Bhadrak, who has written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak to take app
ropriate action on the representation given by the informant. Thereafter, Bhandaripokhri P.S.
Case No.45 of 2016 was registered and the Inspector-In-Charge, Bhandaripokhari P.S. drew up th
e F.I.R. against 53 persons for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 143, 294, 34
1, 353, 506, 186, 188, 120-B and 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
 Act. It is also borne out from the records that the case has been registered against the peti
tioners like Gouranga Charan Mohapatra, petitioner no.2; Prasanta Boitai, petitioner no.3 and
Pratap Mallik, petitioner no.5 in Bhandari Pokhari P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016 and Dipu Boitai, p
etitioner no.3; Pratap Mallik, petitioner no.5 and Gouranga Ch. Mohapatra, petitioner no.2 in
Bhandari Pokhari P.S. Case No.60 of 2016 and Bhandari Pokhari P.S. Case No.59 of 2016 has been
 registered against Pratap Mallik, petitioner no.5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that some other criminal cases are pendin
g against some of the accused persons. It is further conceded that 3 to 5 cases are pending ag
ainst some of the petitioners and in all the cases informants are the sand maphias. He submits
 that all the petitioners are innocent villagers.
4. However, keeping in view the aforesaid contentions, the order of the Honble Division B
ench of the High Court as well as the undisputed fact that the petitioner has been granted a l
ease of sand sairat in his favour, this Court is of the opinion that the informants cannot be
termed as sand mafia. Keeping in view the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, discretiona
ry relief of anticipatory bail should not be granted to them. Moreover, against all the petiti
oners, except 5, 6, 8 and 9, offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the S.C. and S
.T. (P.A.) Act are made out. So, bar under Section 18 of the Special Act is applicable against
 them.