Partly allowed

Sudeshana Panda v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC21 Jun 2016ABLAPL/18665/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3 in a criminal case alleging forgery under IPC, finding no direct charge against them. Bail for petitioner 2, Jangya Narayan Panda, was rejected as his custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for P-1 and P-3 on terms of Arresting Officer; Anticipatory bail rejected for P-2 to facilitate investigation.

Sudeshana Panda Vs State of Orissa — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

ABLAPL No. 18665 of 2015

¶2

21.06.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate.
 The petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offences under S
ections 420, 467 and 468/34 of the I.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 1986 of 2015 of the court of S.D.J.
M., Jharsuguda, arising out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 604 of 2015.

¶3

 It appears from the records that the main allegation of forgery is against petitioner
no.2-Jangya Narayan Panda. It is alleged that he forged an unregistered will showing that his
deceased father has bequest his property in favour of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 happens
 to be wife of petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 is his daughter. As far as petitioners 1 an
d 3 are concerned, there is no allegation of forgery against them. Accordingly, their applicat
ion for anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that on the event of arrest, the petition
ers no.1-Smt. Sudeshana Panda and 3-Sonali Panda shall be released on bail on such terms and c
onditions as deemed just and proper by the Arresting Officer.

¶4

 As far as the application of petitioner no.2-Jangya Narayan Panda is concerned, as inv
estigation of the case is in progress and his custodial interrogation is necessary for various
 reasons including the collection of specimen signatures and hand writings, this Court is of t
he opinion that grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2 will create unnecessary hindranc
e in proper and effective investigation of the case. Accordingly, the application for anticipa
tory bail of petitioner no.2-Jangya Narayan Panda is rejected.

¶5

 The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶6

 Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶7

Sudeshana Panda v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeshana Panda 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

Case details

Similar cases

Pandi Swain Vs State of Orissa

Maruti Kishore Behera Vs State of Orissa

Sudarsan Nath Vs State of Orissa

Susanta Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Hulasa Bhoi@Bhanja@Behera Vs State of Orissa

Prativa Sahu Vs State of Orissa