Mamata Bhatta v. State of Orissa
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court granted bail to the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, finding no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner released on bail in C.T. Case No.1645 of 2017.
What the court decided
BLAPL No.4310 of 2017
13.07.2017
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner being in custody in C.T. Case No.1645 of 2017, arising out of Chandrasek
harpur P.S. Case No.145 of 2017, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, ha
s filed this petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable
under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
Regard being had to the facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation , character of materials appearing against the petitioner in support of the charge, circumstan ces in which the offences alleged to have been committed and factum of substantial progress in the investigation and hardly any material being there to suggest that the petitioner is likel y to abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if enlarged on bail, I am of the vie w that the petitioner in this case deserves to be released on bail.
Hence, the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the Court in seisin over the matter on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of being allowed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves to be released on bail despite substantial progress in the investigation.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
State
Coram
Pujahari
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court