Prakash Kumar Pattnayak v. State of Orissa
Case brief
What is this about?
This applicant challenged an order inadvertently granting anticipatory bail to all five petitioners. The court modified the order to distinguish between those who were signatories to a sale deed, requiring surrender, and those who were not, exempting them from a monetary deposit.
What did the court decide?
Modified order directing signatories to surrender on bail within fifteen days; exempted non-signatories from security deposit and directed them to surrender and pray for bail on future terms.
What the court decided
ABLAPL No.16635 of 2016
Misc. Case No.345 of 2017
28.03.2017 Heard.
This is an application for modification of the order dated 15.03.2017 passed i
n ABLAPL No.16635/2016. It is apparent from the record that inadvertently, the said order has
been typed out granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 on depositing certain
amounts. However, the order itself shows that the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are signatories t
o the sale deed whereas petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have not executed the same.
Hence, the order dated 15.03.2017 is modified to the extent that the petitione
r nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall surrender before the learned JMFC, Pipili within fifteen days hence in
terms of the aforesaid order and they will be released on bail as per the conditions stipul
ated therein.
As far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they shall surrender befo
re the learned JMFC, Pipili and pray for bail. On such event, they shall be released on bail o
n such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by the learned Magistrate. The petitione
r nos. 1 and 2 shall not be required to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- each. This order shall be read a
s a part of the order dated 15.03.2017.
The Misc. Case is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
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.
2
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order granting bail should be modified to distinguish between petitioners who executed the sale deed and those who did not.
Whether petitioner nos. 1 and 2 required to deposit security amount despite bail modification.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court