The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court declined to grant relief due to the nature of allegations and game facts, vacating the earlier interim order.
Ablep restricted is rejected; interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ABLAPL NO.19095 OF 2015
03.3.2016. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the S
tate.
2. Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Section 392 o
f the I.P.C. in C.T. Case No.4760/2015 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising o
ut of Nayapali P.S. Case No.356/2015.
3. Keeping in view the nature of the allegations made and the facts of the case, this Court
is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.
Accordingly, the ABLAPL is rejected.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest for an offence under Section 392 IPC.
Petitioner
State
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court