Allowed

Mayadhar Sethy v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC7 Mar 2017ABLAPL/16524/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail to petitioners apprehending arrest in an FIR involving stone-pelting on police. The court observed allegations were general and noted petitioners' fixed residencies precluded absconding, restricting arrest for 21 days pending surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners to surrender before SDJM, Anandapur within 21 working days; non-arrest order for 21 days.

The petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 337, 307, 506, 436, 353, 294, 323, 332/149 of the IPC re ad with Section 4 of the PDPP Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in G.R. Ca se No.264/2007 of the court of learned SDJM, Anandapur, arising out of Nandipada P.S. Case No. 56/2007.

It is apparent from the record that a case of child sacrifice was rep orted in the village, Elakania coming within the jurisdiction of Nandipada Police Station in t he district of Keonjhar. When the police went to investigate, a large number of persons gather ed there and demanded proper investigation of the case as it is alleged that the police agency was not properly investigating the case and was allegedly covering the case, so that the real culprits will not be caught and tried. In that view of the matter, it is alleged that about 1 000 persons started pelting stone and setting fire on the police vehicle. This Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 307 IPC, which invites major punishment, is not made o ut against the petitioners. An offence under Section 436 IPC is also not made out. Moreover, t he allegations against the petitioners are most general and omnibus. No specific overt act has been attributed to any of them. No criminal antecedent is forthcoming. They are permanent res idents of different villages mentioned in the cause title of the petition, P.S. Nandipada, Dis t. Keonjhar, which precludes any chance of their absconding from justice. There is no allegat ion on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioners will tamper with the prosecution evidenc e if released on bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the ABLAPL is allowed. It is submitted that c harge-sheet has been filed. Let the petitioners surrender before the learned SDJM, Anandapur i n the aforesaid case within 21 working days and pray for bail. On such event, they shall be re leased on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned Magistrat e. The petitioners shall not be arrested for the next 21 working days by any police officer ei ther on his own accord or on the basis of any warrant issued by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case.

Misc.CaseNo.8721of2011 23.06.2011 In the interim, it is directed that the petitioner no.2 shall not be d isengaged 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.

Mayadhar Sethy v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayadhar Sethy 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

Brahmeswar Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Samanta Deba Prasad Dhal Vs Durga Pr.Mohapatra

Soumya Ranjan Sethy Vs State of Orissa

Bichitra Kumar Behera Vs Chief Executive Officer,Nesco Ltd.

Prasanna Ku.Pati Vs State of Orissa

Bijayananda Pati Vs State of Orissa