Allowed

Chaitanya Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Aug 2019ABLAPL/2477/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail fearing arrest in a police case involving offences under sections 341, 294, 323, 324, and 307 of the IPC. The Court observed that injuries were simple, the dispute was political, and there was no evidence of criminal antecedents or flight risk, resulting in interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the police officer effecting arrest to release the petitioner on bail on such terms and conditions deemed just and proper.

Chaitanya Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL NO.2477 OF 2019

¶2

04 01.08.2019 The petitioner apprehending his arrest in Nayagarh Sadar P.S. Case No.08 of 2019, corresponding to G.R.Case No.45 of 2019 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/294/323/324/307 of I.P.C. has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶4

The allegation of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner abused different persons on the village road taking their names including the husband of the informant who was a member of the village committee, then brought out a knife and with an intention to kill, stabbed to his chest with the knife for which he sustained injury and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the petitioner dealt him fist and kick blows and extended threats to other persons present there. Then the injured was shifted to the hospital at Nayagarh where he had undergone treatment. The injury report reveals that the condition of the injured was critical.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. The incident arose out of a political dispute as revealed from the materials on record. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has also no chance of absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits to release him on pre-arrest bail.

¶6

Learned counsel for the State, however, made objection to the prayer for bail with the submission that the petitioner is a hooligan and he is regularly abusing and threatening to the people of the village. Report of the Medical Officer reveals that the injured was hospitalized in critical condition, and as such the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶7

But on perusal of the materials available on record, it is revealed that though the doctors in the hospital at Nayagarh has stated the

¶8

¶9

injuries to be critical for which injured was referred to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, the injured denied to go there and the injuries sustained were simple in nature as revealed from the subsequent opinion of the Surgery Specialist District Headquarters Hospital, Nayagarh. Further the materials on record reveals that there is political animosity between the parties. No Material is produced indicating the antecedent of the petitioner. Nothing is also there to suggest that he shall abscond and/or tamper with the investigation/ prosecution evidence, if released on bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner, circumstances in which the offences said to have been committed and nothing being there on record indicating the fact that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent, so also least chance of his being absconding and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail in this case.

¶11

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case, they be released on bail by the Officer effecting arrest on such terms and conditions as deemed just and proper.

¶12

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.

¶13

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

lnb

Chaitanya Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitanya Sahu v. State of Odisha

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

Case details

Similar cases

Jagabandhu Behera Vs State of Odisha

Guru@Gurupad Das Vs State of Odisha

Rajendra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Jitu Badanayak Vs State of Odisha

Sudhakar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra@Ramwsh Mallik Vs State of Odisha