Disposed

Rahul Prasad Chhura@Rahul Prasad v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC12 Apr 2019ABLAPL/371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of three pre-arrest bail applications filed by petitioners implicated in a party dispute case. The court granted directions for release on bail upon surrender before the court below within six weeks, emphasizing that no useful purpose would be served by continued detention. The court emphasized a strict deadline for surrender without extension.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release petitioners on bail upon surrender to the court below within six weeks, subject to standard conditions.

Rahul Prasad Chhura@Rahul Prasad Vs State of Orissa — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL No.371 of 2018

¶2

ABLAPL No.371 of 2018, ABLAPL No.387 of 2018 And

¶3

ABLAPL No.398 of 2018

¶4

04. 12.04.2019

¶5

All these three bail applications for pre-arrest bail having arisen from one P.S. Case, i.e., Plantsite P.S. Case No.2 of 2018, the same are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

¶6

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

¶7

All the petitioners in the aforesaid cases having been implicated in Plantsite P.S. Case No.2 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.7 of 2018, pending in court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 294, 506 and 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, have filed these petitions for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶8

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

¶9

It appears that investigation in the aforesaid case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed deleting Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as no evidence could be collected by the police with regard to the same, as submitted by the learned State counsel.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the incident occurred due to a quarrel between two groups during the new year celebration. The petitioners are not the persons of any criminal

¶11

¶12

Contd…….. 12.04.2019

¶13

antecedents. No material is also there indicating that they shall abscond and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail. The petitioners have also not abused the condition of liberty while on interim bail granted by this Court. In such premises, when the charge-sheet in this case has already been filed, the petitioners may be release on pre-arrest bail on their surrendering before the Court below, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State, however, made objection to the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners with the submission that serious injury was caused by Anand Dunguri, petitioner in ABLAPL No.387 of 2018, but no injury report could be produced.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the Informant though opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners with the submission that the injured was sustained head injury, but no material is produced in this respect.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature of accusation, character of evidence appearing against the petitioners in support of the charge, circumstances in which the offences stated to have been committed and also the fact that no useful purpose is going to be served in keeping the petitioners behind the bar who are continuing on interim bail and also nothing is there on record indicating that the petitioners shall abscond and/or

¶17

¶18

Contd…….. 12.04.2019

¶19

tamper with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail, this Court directs that if the petitioners in all these three petitions surrender before the Court in seisin over the matter within six weeks’ hence and make a motion for bail, the Court concerned shall release them on bail in connection with the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it may deem just and proper including the condition that they shall not make any contact or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner, violation of which shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that in no circumstances the aforesaid period of surrender of the petitioners shall be extended.

¶21

Accordingly, all these ABLAPLs are disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶22

………………… S.Pujahari, J.

¶23

MRS

¶24

¶25

Rahul Prasad Chhura@Rahul Prasad v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Prasad Chhura@Rahul Prasad 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

Kuna Swain Vs State of Orissa

Utpal Kumar Paikray@Utkal Paikaray Vs State of Orissa

Anita Kumari Panda Vs State of Orissa

[email protected] Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Arjun Parida Vs State of Odisha

Papu@Chittaranjan Mallick Vs State of Odisha