Allowed

Suprava Dash v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC3 Dec 2016ABLAPL/18604/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by a woman accused of offences under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the IPC. Finding no likelihood of absconding and accepting the benefit of her gender under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner shall be released on bail upon arrest under suitable terms.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application allowed; upon arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on terms deemed just by the arresting officer.

2. Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 420 /406/34 of the I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.620/2013 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal ari sing out of Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.125(8)/2013.

3. It is apparent from the record that similar cases involving the same offences and offence s 4,5 and 6 of the PCMCS Act were initiated against the petitioner corresponding to G.R. Cas e No.1141/2013 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul arising out of Angul P.S. Case No.408/ 2013. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail in BLAPL No.18457/2013 on 22. 11.2013 by a Bench of this Court. The said application was allowed on the ground that in all the cases of Sea Shore Group of Companies investigation has been taken over by the CID CB. By virtue of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Subrat Chhotray investi gation of all the cases involving the Sea Shore Group has been taken over by the CBI.

4. While matters stood thus, a fresh complaint has been filed by the complainant Sudharani Panda before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal and by virtue of orders passed under Section 156( 3) of the Cr.P.C., the same has been registered as Dhenkanal Town P.S. Case No.125(8)/2013 for the alleged commission of offences under Section 406/420/34 of the I.P.C. It is apparent fro m the records that the petitioner was working as a Branch

Head of the Sea Shore Company. She had no role in the policy and/or decision making of the co mpany where policy decisions were taken to invite public deposits with an unreasonable high re turn. Moreover, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Kunjakanta in the district of Dhenkanal. Hence there is no chance of her absconding from justice. There is also no allega tion on the behalf of the prosecution that she will not tamper prosecution evidence if she is released on bail. On the top of it, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner being a lady, the benefit of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. should be extended to her. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is allowed. On the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on such ter ms and conditions as deemed just and proper by him in the aforesaid case.

Suprava Dash v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suprava Dash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brahmananda Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Pintu@Priyabrata Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Surendra Martha Vs State of Orissa

Trailokya Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Manoj Kumar Nath Vs State of Orissa

Rama Chandra Mahanta Vs State of Orissa