Single judge rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. The court noted the existence of criminal antecedents, observing that the petitioners allegedly committed the present offences while on previous anticipatory bail granted by this Court.
Anticipatory Bail application 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.324 of 2016
01.03.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government
Advocate.
The petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence
under Sections 294, 323, 354-B, 392 and 506/34 of the IPC in G.R. Case No.1699 of the court o
f learned SDJM, Angul, arising out of Chhendipada P.S. Case No.191/2015.
It is apparent from the records that there is a criminal antecedent against th
e petitioners. They have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 21.09.2015 in ABLAPL
No.12168/2015. However, taking advantage of that anticipatory bail, they allegedly committed
the present offence, out of which this bail application arises.
Keeping in view the aforesaid consideration and the facts of the case, ABLAPL
is rejected.
.
S.K. Mishra, J.
Intheinterim,Misc.CaseitNo.8721isdirectedof2011thatthepetitioner no.2 shall not be disengage
d only on the basis of attaining the age of 60 till the next date.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
S.K. Mishra, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given apprehension of arrest and criminal antecedents for commission of subsequent offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
The State
S.K. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court