In an application for anticipatory bail regarding an FIR under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, the High Court, after hearing counsel, determined that the nature of accusation and surrounding circumstances were not conducive to granting bail, leading to its rejection.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.19425 of 2016
2. 15.12.2016 The petitioners having been implicated in Angul P.S. Case No.581 of 20
16 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1507 of 2016 registered for alleged commission of offence und
er Section 427 IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Angul
have filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
Considering the submission and viewing the nature of accusation as reveals fro
m the materials available as well as other surrounding circumstances, I do not find it to be a
fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is rej
ected.
The ABLAPL stands dismissed.
.. D. Dash, J.
Aks
1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case under Section 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the petitioners for anticipatory bail are liable to be granted bail given the nature of accusation and surrounding circumstances.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
Respondent
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court