Allowed

Kartika Kanhar v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC5 Aug 2016ABLAPL/8370/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a case alleging offences under multiple IPC sections, directing release on bond of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties and conditions to remain available for interrogation and no interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 5,000 with two solvent sureties each, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation and no interference with witnesses.

ABLAPL No.8370 of 2016 05.08.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bai l to the petitioners in connection with G.R. Case No. 279 of 2015 arising out of Tikabali P.S. Case No. 80 of 2015 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., G.Udayagiri for alleged commiss ion of offences under sections 143/341/294/323/353/506/109/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to dispute relating to th e distribution of ration cards, the case has been foisted and the offences are triable by Magi strate and therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may be favourably considered. He further submits that the petitioners nos. 3 to 7 are the ladies and no specific overt act has been attributed against any of the petitioners.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective pa rties, nature of accusation against the petitioners, the background of the case and fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they shall be released on bail on furnishin g bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each with two solvent sureties each

for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and th ey shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acqua inted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investigating Officer.

Kartika Kanhar v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartika Kanhar 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panchu@Panchanan Barik Vs State of Orissa

Mahadev Harijan Vs State of Orissa

Arun Jena@Pinpudi Vs State of Orissa

Routray Sahu@Routura Sahu Vs State of Orissa

Mantu@Rakesh Jena Vs State of Orissa

Sunil Naik Vs State of Orissa