Allowed

Tapas Ku.Basu Mallick v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC10 Jul 2017ABLAPL/8797/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners application was entertained for pre-arrest bail against various IPC charges. The court held that though the case diary was missing due to non-production by the State despite directions, there was little evidence to suggest the petitioner would abscond or tamper with witness, making him a fit case for pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner be released on bail on arrest.

Tapas Ku.Basu Mallick Vs State of Orissa — Anticipatory Bail | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

 ABLAPL No.8797 of 2017

¶2

 03. 10.07.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and l
earned counsel for the State.

¶3

 The petitioner apprehending his arrest in Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.321
of 2017 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 427/
 506/ 354/ 379 of the I.P.C., corresponding to G.R. Case No.930 of 2017, pending in the court
of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda, has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.
 In spite of direction of this Court, case diary has not been produced.

¶4

 It appears that the informant had taken the shop room of the petitione
r on rent basis and given a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner as advance. After some days,
the petitioner without intimation to the informant stated to have destroyed the articles there
 inside the shop room and taken a sum of Rs.9.340/- away from the drawer of the informant. Whe
n the informant complained the same, the petitioner stated to have assaulted her and extended
threat to kill her.

¶5

 Considering the facts and submissions made, especially the nature of a
ccusation, character of materials appearing against the petitioner in support of charge, circu
mstances in which the offences alleged to have been committed and hardly any material being th
ere to suggest the fact that the petitioner shall abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution e
vidence, if allowed to go on pre-arrest bail, I am of the view that this is a fit case to enla
rge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

¶6

 Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitione
r in connection with the aforesaid case, he be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on su
ch terms and conditions as the Arresting Officer may deem it just and proper.

¶7

 The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.
 Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

¶8

BJ

¶9

Tapas Ku.Basu Mallick v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapas Ku.Basu Mallick 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagan Behera Vs State

Ujjal Mistry Vs State of Orissa

Mohammed Irfan Vs State of Orissa

Smruti Ranjan Acharya Vs State of Orissa

Sukumar Bal Vs State of Orissa

Hemanta@Hamant Behera Vs State of Orissa