Allowed

Lalit Ku.Patel v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC5 Apr 2017ABLAPL/3436/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court, considering that the offences are triable by a Magistrate, arise from a civil dispute between related parties, and do not involve serious accusations, directed that the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000 each with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000 each with two sureties for the like amount.

This is an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipa tory bail to the petitioners in connection with Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.102 of 2017 correspond ing to G.R. Case No.359 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda for alleg ed commission of offences under sections 147/148/452/294/323/354/506/149 of the Indian Penal C ode.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties are related t o each other and due to civil dispute between the parties, the case has been foisted and the o ffences are triable by Magistrate and therefore, taking into account the nature of accusation, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners may be favourably considered. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, the nature of accusation a gainst the petitioners and the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate and parties ar e related to each other, I am inclined to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail and acc ordingly, 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 furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees five thousand) each with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfa ction of the arresting officer with further conditions that they shall make themselves a vailable for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact s of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investig ating Officer.

Lalit Ku.Patel v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Ku.Patel 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

Benudhar PARIDAandANR Vs State

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Sunil Ku. Mohanty

Sunil Saha Vs State of Orissa

BaGUN Gagrai Vs State of Orissa

Satyabrata Malik Vs State of Orissa

Aruna Kumar Pati Vs State of Orissa