Partly allowed

Sukumar Bal v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC10 Jul 2017ABLAPL/8815/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special leave petition for pre-arrest bail was filed in a pending criminal case under various sections of the IPC. The High Court declined bail for two petitioners due to the gravity of charges but granted it for three others, directing release if they are arrested.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner nos.1 and 3 rejected; prayer for petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 allowed with direction to Arresting Officer to release them if arrested.

The petitioners apprehending their arrest in Kalinganagar (Duburi) P.S . Case No.75 of 2017 registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 1 47/ 148/ 341/ 323/ 325/ 506/ 149 of the I.P.C., corresponding to G.R. Case No.486 of 2017, pen ding in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road, have filed this petition for their release on pre-arrest bail.

So far as prayer for pre-arrest bail in respect of petitioner nos.1 an d 3, namely, Sukumar Bal and Akshya Kumar Mohanty is concerned, considering the nature and gra vity of the accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner nos.1 and 3, ci rcumstances in which the offences alleged to have been committed and also there being nothing on record to show that the allegation has been made against the petitioner nos.1 and 3 being a ctuated with malafide, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner nos.1 and 3 on pre -arrest bail.

So far as prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 is c oncerned, considering the facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, cha racter of materials appearing against the petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 in support of charge, circ umstances in which the offences alleged to have been committed and hardly any material being t here to suggest the fact that the petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 shall abscond and/or tamper with t he prosecution evidence, if allowed to go on pre-arrest bail, I am of the view that this is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 on pre-arrest bail. Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitione r nos.2, 4 and 5, namely, Kartik Chandra Bal, Raichand Bal and Narmada Nayak, in connection wi th the aforesaid case, they be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and con ditions as the Arresting Officer may deem it just and proper.

Sukumar Bal v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumar Bal 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

Gagan Behera Vs State

Ujjal Mistry Vs State of Orissa

Mohammed Irfan Vs State of Orissa

Tapas Ku.Basu Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Smruti Ranjan Acharya Vs State of Orissa

Hemanta@Hamant Behera Vs State of Orissa