Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Sishodia v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC16 Nov 2021BLAPL/6517/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed a bail application as infructuous because the petitioner had already been granted regular bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC below. The Court cited inconsistencies in filings by counsel regarding pending applications and emphasized the need for prompt disposal of default bail applications.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed as infructuous due to release on default bail.

Manoj Kumar Sishodia Vs State of Orissa — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 6517 of 2019

¶3

Manoj Kumar Sishodia …. Petitioner Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Orissa …. Opposite Party Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER 16.11.2021

The matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

¶11

Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo in Court today and submits that the bail application has been rendered infructuous and the petitioner has been released on default bail by the learned court below for which he does not want to press this bail application. The memo be kept on record.

¶12

On 26.10.2021, when the matter was listed, Mr. R.L. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that although the petitioner had been granted interim bail by this Court but he had not availed the interim bail, but during pendency of this bail application before this Court, he had been granted regular bail by learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput at Jeypore.

¶13

On account of such submission, a report had been called for from the learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

Koraput at Jeypore as regards the circumstances in which the petitioner-Manoj Kumar Sishodia has been granted bail by him during pendency of the bail application before this Court.

¶16

Report dated 30.10.2021 has been received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore. He has stated therein that on 29.06.2021, an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. had been filed before the Court with a prayer to release the petitioner on default bail and the certificate was furnished by the learned counsel that no similar application is pending in any other court having jurisdiction. Accepting the aforesaid submissions and taking into considerations, the principles decided in the case of Lambodar Bag vrs. State of Odisha, (2018) 71 OCR 31 and the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CRLMC No. 1358 of 2020 dated 08.02.2021 ( Rohiteswar Meher vrs. State of Odisha ), the petitioner was released on bail. The report further states that as the learned counsel has suppressed the fact of grant of interim bail to the petitioner and pendency of the bail application before this Court, he believed the submission and contention of the certificate in the bail application and released the petitioner on bail. He has also begged apology for the over sight.

¶17

An application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. deals with a valuable and indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail on the failure of the prosecution to complete investigation within the prescribed time and it is now settled by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts that when such an application for bail is filed by an accused for enforcement of this

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

right, which accrues in his favour on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within the specified period, the Magistrate/Court must dispose of it forthwith, on being satisfied that in fact the accused has been in custody for the period of 90 days or 60 days, as specified and no chargesheet has been filed by the investigating agency.

¶21

“Such prompt action on the part of the Magistrate/court will not enable the prosecution to frustrate the object of the Act and the legislative mandate of an accused being released on bail on account of the default on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the period stipulated ” (See Uday Mohanlal Acharya vrs. Stateb of Maharashtra : (2001) 5 SCC 453) .

¶22

In M. Ravindran vrs. Intelligence Officer reported in (2021) 2

¶23

SCC 485 , the Hon’ble Court interlia held:-

¶24

…. “ 18. Therefore, in conclusion:

¶25

18.1 Once the accused files an application for bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) he is deemed to have ‘availed of’ or enforced his right to be released on default bail, accruing after expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation.

¶26

Thus, if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary information from the public prosecutor, as mentioned supra. Such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency.”….

¶27

Therefore in my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore has not committed any mistake in

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

entertaining and disposing of the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C expeditiously, especially in view of the certificate furnished by the learned counsel that no similar application was pending in any other court having jurisdiction.

¶31

A report was called for from the learned court below on the submission of Mr. R.L.Patnaik, learned counsel that the petitioner has been released on regular bail, while this BLAPL was pending here. This submission now appears to have been incorrect. But on account of this incorrect submission, the aforesaid report had been called for and it has clarified the position.

¶32

In fact, it is often seen that some learned counsels are filing cases without indicating in the certificate, details of the cases/ applications filed earlier or pending and filing memos for withdrawal of cases including bail applications without specifying the reason for withdrawal.

¶33

Accepting the incorrect certificate, the bail applications are entertained by the learned Courts below and this Court for which on some occasions contradictory orders are passed on the prayer of the same accused and some orders subsequently have to be recalled or are set aside by the higher Court.

¶34

The pendency of criminal cases in this Court would reduce if learned counsels ensure that the accused do not pursue multiple applications for the same/ similar relief in the Court of Sessions and this Court simultaneously.

¶35

Withdrawing a case / application promptly when it has been rendered infructuous goes a long way in disposal of infructuous cases

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

// 5 //

¶38

and reducing the pendency of cases. But withdrawing a case without furnishing reason should be avoided as that is usually to cover up multiple filing or simultaneous filing in two forums.

¶39

In view of the report that the petitioner has been released on bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., this application is rendered infructuous.

¶40

The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed as infructuous with the aforesaid submissions.

¶41

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶42

(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Manoj Kumar Sishodia v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sishodia 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasant Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Singh Vs State of Orissa

Mithun Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Chandan Parija Vs State

Gyanaranjan Jena Vs State of Odisha

Mangala Ho Vs State of Orissa