Allowed

Malay Moharana@Malaya Kumar Moharana v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC4 Jul 2017BLAPL/4358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was in custody for offences including rioting and criminal conspiracy. The Court observed that normalcy had been restored, no evidence suggested the petitioner would abscond or tamper with witnesses, and he warranted release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in G.R. Case No.732 of 2017 by the Court in seisin.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner being in custody in G.R. Case No.732 of 2017, arising out of Bhadrak Tow n P.S. Case No.103 of 2017, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, has filed t his petition for his release on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Se ctions 143/147/436/ 294/506/149 of I.P.C.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in view of the communal tension between the communities, out of which the aforesaid incident stated to have arisen, in the Bhadrak district. The petiti oner is not a person of criminal antecedent. Nothing is there on record indicating the fact th at the petitioner shall abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on ba il. In such premises, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State, however, makes objection to the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner advancing the submission that the petitioner was one of the main culprits in the af oresaid case and his names finds place in the F.I.R. In such view of the matter, the petitione r should not be released on bail.

However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that in the meanwhil e normalcy has been restored in the Bhadrak Town. Nothing is there on record indicating the fa ct that the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedents and he shall abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail.

Therefore, regard being had to the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner in support of th e charge, circumstances in which the offence said to have been committed, factum of substantia l progress in the investigation and hardly any material being there to suggest that the petiti oner is likely to abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail, I am of the view that he 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 in the fact situ ation of the case.

Malay Moharana@Malaya Kumar Moharana v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malay Moharana@Malaya Kumar Moharana 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

Mirza S.I.Baig Vs State

Khageswar@Dulla Goch Vs State

Rahasbihari Seth Vs State

Basudeb Barik Vs Family Members

Babu@Babula Gouda Vs State of Orissa

Ranjan Mahabhoi Vs State of Orissa