Dismissed

Padma Charan Padhi v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC9 Mar 2017ABLAPL/15089/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a case involving cheating and misappropriation under IPC Sections 409 and 420, citing the gravity of the offense and prima facie case. The court observed that while anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power, it is not a right. However, the court directed the cognizance court not to be bound by the charge-sheet if mater

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; cognizance court directed to be free to issue process against other persons if materials emerge.

ABLAPL No.15089 of 2016 09.03.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and the learned Addl. Standing Coun sel, who opposed to the bail application by referring to the statement of the witnesses record ed by the Investigating Officer. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that i n the meantime charge-sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner excluding other persons named in the F.I.R.

The petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offences under Sec tions 409 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 559 of 2016 of the court of J.M.F.C., Nima para, arising out of Kakatpur P.S. Case No. 78 of 2016.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a ver y innocent person of 59 years and if anticipatory bail is not granted to him, he will face ext reme hardship and situation will be perpetuated against him. It is further submitted by him th at since the higher officers have been exonerated from the scope of the charge-sheet, a wrong message will go to the Society to the effect that higher officers have been spared by the Inve stigating Officer and only a 4th grade employee has been charge-sheeted.

However, learned Addl. Standing Counsel strongly opposed to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that ample opportunity has been given to the p resent petitioner to prove his innocence, but he has failed to do so and on verification of re cords it was found that he was supposed to deposit the money with the State Bank of India and with UCO Bank of Kakatpur Branch, but he has not done so and in the process it is alleged that Rs.17 lakh has been swindled by the present petitioner. It is true that there may be other ma terials which would prima facie indicate that the case against Yudhistir Behera, Pravakar Khun tia, Prakash Chandra Patro and Purna Chandra Sahoo is made out, but that does not entail the p resent petitioner to get an order of anticipatory bail as a right.

While considering the application for anticipatory bail, after the amendment of the Cr .P.C., the Court must give due weightage to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the ante cedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprison ment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;, the possibility of the ap plicant to flee from justice; and where the accusation has been made with the object of injuri ng or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, can either reject or pass order for releasing him on bail on the event of arrest.

Having considered this aspect of the case, it is seen that prima facie offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. are made out against the present petitioner. Punishment pre scribed for the offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. is imprisonment for life or rigorous i mprisonment for 10 years and fine. Thus, it is definitely a very grave offence, for which the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail.

The Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State o f Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 has observed that the power for consideration of application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, however, it does not mean that it is to be used in extraordinary situation. However, caution is imposed by the Honble Supreme Court th at such power of granting anticipatory bail should be used in rarest of rare cases.

Thus, keeping in view existence of a prima facie case under Section 409 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner, maximum punishment prescribed for the offences, amount of defalcation allegedly committed by the petitioner and larger and greater interest of the Sate and Society, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the app lication for anticipatory bail is rejected.

However, keeping in view the fact of the case, this Court is constraint to order that while taking cognizance of the offences, the cognizance taking court shall not be bound by the Charge-sheet filed by the Police and it is open for him to issue process if materials are for thcoming against any other person.

Padma Charan Padhi v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Charan Padhi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Ku.Nayak Vs the Asst.Manager,Cesu

Dillip Ku.Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Ismail Vs Director,Markets

Pramod Ku.Swain Vs State of Odisha

Mahaveer Singh Vs Union of India

Prakash Ch.Barad Vs State of Odisha