Allowed

Kamala Kant Rout v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC16 Mar 2017ABLAPL/16952/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Anticipatory Bail Laws Petition for two elderly petitioners charged under Sections 420 IPC and Section 4(f) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. The court held that Section 4(f) is inapplicable as petitioners are not public servants and dismissed bail concerns by noting the case arose from a civil dispute, the penalty was under seven years, and there was no flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail; to be released on bail by arresting officer on terms deemed just and proper.

The petitioners are apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 (f) of the SC and ST (PA) Act in Special G .R. Case No.211/2016 of the court of learned Special Judge, Bhadrak, arising out of Tihidi P.S . Case No.395/2016.

The allegation against the petitioner no.1-Kamala Kant Rout is that he has pur chased a piece of land from Prafulla Kumar Rout. The said land belongs to the petitioner no.1. Accordingly, a case under the aforesaid sections has been registered. But, it is apparent fro m the records that the case under Section 4 (f) of the aforesaid Act is not made out against t he petitioners as the petitioners are not public servants and they were not entrusted with pub lic duty. So, there is no question of willful neglect on their part to discharge their duties as required to be performed by them under Section 4(f) of the aforesaid Act. This Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 4(f) of the aforesaid Act is not applicable to the present case, So, the bar created under Section 18 of the Special Act will not be applicable t o this case.

As far as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the contents of the FIR reveal a civil dispute. Moreover, the offence under Sect ion 420 IPC is not punishable with a term of imprisonment exceeding seven years. The petitione rs are permanent residents of Ishanpur, P.S. Tihidi, Dist. Bhadrak and there is no chance of t heir fleeing from justice. Moreover, there is no allegation on behalf of the State that the pe titioners shall tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. No criminal anteced ent is reported against the

Keeping in view the aforesaid consideration, the ABLAPL is allowed. In the eve nt of their arrest in the aforesaid case, the petitioners shall be released on bail by the arr esting officer on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper by him.

Kamala Kant Rout v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamala Kant Rout 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

Raghunath Behera Vs State of Orissa

Samir Mohanty Vs State of Orissavig.

Prakash Kumar Pattnayak Vs State of Orissa

Shyamaghana Naik Vs State of Orissa

Kumar Parida Vs State of Orissa

Sudhir Kumar Dhara Vs State of Orissa