Dismissed

Susanta Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Jun 2019BLAPL/1086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving Naxalite-related offences. The court rejected the bail plea due to prima facie materials showing participation in the movement, supply of articles to insurgents, and leadership in a meeting to attack police, despite the petitioner not being named in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; BLAPL stands dismissed.

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

¶1

BLAPL No. 1086 of 2019

¶2

20.06.2019

¶3

Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned counsel files his appearance memo on behalf of the petitioner with the consent of the previous engaged counsel, which is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶5

This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in connection with Phiringia P.S. Case No.97 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 501 of 2018 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/120-B/ 121/121-A/124-A/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act along with sections 4/5/6 of Explosive Substances Act and section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and sections 16(1)(a)/18A/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

¶6

The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cumSpecial Judge, Vigilance, Phulbani by order dated 28.01.2019.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.12.2018 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 147/148/120-B/ 121/121-A/124-A/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act along with sections 4/5/6 of Explosive Substance Act and section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and sections

¶8

16(1)(a)/18-A/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been named in the First Information Report and he has not even participated in the firing and cross-firing with the police officials and the petitioner is a man of Nayagarh district and he is a business man and doing business at Mingunipadar in Kandamal district and the role attributed to the petitioner is that he was having a grocery shop and he was supplying groceries to the Naxalites and instigating others to join in Naxalite movement as he is a supporter of such movement and some printed materials like leaflets and banners were seized from the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.

¶9

Mr. Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statements of Kalandi Sethi and Sala Kanhar indicate regarding the participation of the petitioner when the S.O.G. team was conducting anti-Naxal operation in Gagarpata Reserved Forest Jungle area. It is contended that there are materials to show that not only the petitioner was a supporter of Naxalite movement but he was also helping to the Naxalites and two days prior to the date of occurrence i.e. on 13.11.2018, under the leadership of the petitioner, a meeting was arranged and in that meeting,

¶10

other Naxalite leaders were present and a decision was taken to kill the police officials if they come to their area and they also gave different slogans against the State Government. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that fifty numbers of moist leaflets were seized from the petitioner and therefore, in view of the clinching materials available on record, the bail application should be rejected.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner and taking into account the prima facie material available against the petitioner relating to his participation in the Naxalite movement, supply of articles to the Naxalites and instigating others to join the Naxalite movement and leading in a meeting organized two days prior to the date of occurrence in which decision was taken to fire at the police officials and further taking into account the nature of incriminating materials seized from the possession of the petitioner and the fact that further investigation is under progress and some of the co-accused persons are yet to be arrested and the manner in which poor innocent Adibasi people were threatened in the name of Naxalites, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶12

The BLAPL stands dismissed.

¶13

…………………..……

¶14

RKM

¶15

S.K.Sahoo, J.

Susanta Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susanta Kumar 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debendra Patra@Munu Patra Vs State of Orissa

Trinath Badamundi Vs State of Odisha

Abani Kumar Parida Vs State of Odisha

Agasti Ghatal Vs State of Odisha

Suman Kumar Padhi@Mikun Vs State of Odisha

Subharam Karta@Ninu@Minu Vs State of Odisha