Allowed

Papu@Bisal Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Sept 2020ABLAPL/8884/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners facing charges of assault, extortion, and cheating. The court held that release would not hinder the investigation or lead to absconding, barring the commission of other graver offences.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail granted to Petitioners No.1 and No.2, subject to cooperation with investigation and no commission of other graver offences.

Papu@Bisal Patra Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CORAM :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.PUJAHARI

¶2

ABLAPL NO.8884 OF 2020

¶3

Papu @ Bisal Patra.

¶4

Titua @ Maheswar Jena.

¶5

Natu @ Shishira Jena (Not pressed vide

¶6

order dated 28.08.2020)

¶7

…….. Petitioners

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

State of Odisha …….. Opp.party

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

03. 04.09.2020

¶12

In the wake of the Pandemic Covid-19, the case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶13

The petitioners apprehending their arrest in Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No.201 of 2020, corresponding to C.T. Case No.557 of 2020 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Balasore registered for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 386, 387 and 506/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, have filed this petition for their release on pre-arrest bail.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

¶15

The prosecution allegation as revealed from the F.I.R. is that on 17.7.2020 at 8.30 A.M., the petitioners came to Railway Station Malgodam, Balasore Town and demanded ‘Dadabati’ from the informant, who is working as Labour Sardar in the Railway Malgodam and when the

¶16

¶17

informant protested to the same, they stated to have damaged his bike by a sharp cutting weapon, i.e., “Telenga Katuri” and also took away the key of his bike, so also assaulted him deadly blows to his right hand with the same, but when the people arrived there, they fled away from the spot. It is also alleged that, on 26.06.2020 during evening hour while he was making payment to his labourers in his office, they had also demanded ‘Dadabati’ and for noncompliance of the same, extended threat to the informant and caused damage to his office.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was rivalry between the petitioners and the informant with regard to engagement of the labourers in the Railway Malgodam, for which, a false report has been lodged against them with an oblique motive to harass them. Neither any money was handed over to them pursuant to demand nor any injury was caused to the informant. The petitioners are permanent residence of Balasore Town. In such premises, he submits to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State, however, vehemently opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners.

¶20

On consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the nature and character of incriminating materials, circumstances in which the offence alleged to have been committed and there being no material to suggest that the petitioners no.1 and 2’ release on prearrest bail shall be an hindrance to a free and fair investigation and/or they shall abscond, this Court is of the view that the petitioners no.1 and 2 in this case deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶21

¶22

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioners no.1 and 2 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.

¶23

However, the aforesaid order is subject to the condition that the petitioners no.1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigation and no other graver offence is reported against the petitioners no.1 and 2 besides the aforesaid offences.

¶24

The ABLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of being allowed.

¶25

Due to difficulties faced by the parties in getting the certified copies of this order and in view of the Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020, if a printout of the copy of this order from the website of the High Court is produced by the party duly attested by him to be the true copy, the same be treated at par with the certified copy and the direction be complied with.

¶26

S.Pujahari, J.

¶27

MRS/ DA

¶28

Papu@Bisal Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papu@Bisal Patra 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

Secy.Aska Vs State

Sayed Misbahul Hussain Vs State of Odisha

Sadanand Das Gurumohant Vs the Secretary Tourism Dept. Khurda

Kirti Ranjan Bastia Vs State of Odisha

Sarua @ Mahendra Jena Vs State of Odisha

Siba Prasad Parida Vs State of Odisha