Allowed

Srinibash Pradhan @ Mallick v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Nov 2021BLAPL/8390/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to petitioners in a case involving death of a person. Petitioners were local inhabitants and some co-accused had been granted bail or acquitted by courts below. Bail granted with bond of Rs.40,000 and strict conditions for appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.40,000 each with one solvent surety for appearance on every date until trial concludes.

Srinibash Pradhan @ Mallick Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.8390 of 2021

¶3

Srinibash Pradhan @ Mallick and Anr.

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Om Prakash Sahu Pradhan, Advocate

¶6

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

¶7

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

10.11.2021

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

¶14

This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the petitioners in connection with G. Udayagiri P.S. Case No.102 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.356 (F) of 2008 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri.

¶15

Perused the FIR and other documents besides the impugned order dated 16.09.2021.

¶16

The complainant lodged the FIR regarding the alleged occurrence of 2008 describing therein that the accused persons committed the overt acts which resulted in the death of a person. In that connection, after the FIR was lodged, G. Udayagiri P.S. Case No.102 of 2008 registered.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the accused persons who are named in the FIR have been granted bail by this Court in the year, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and in the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

meantime, two of them were acquitted of the charges after trial in S.T. No.137/48 of 2009. While contending so, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced copy of a judgment dated 18.11.2010 delivered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-!, Phulbani. The bail orders in respect of some accused persons are at Annexure-6 series. It is contended that the petitioners are local inhabitants which is supported by the documents at Annexure-4 series and as such, never absconded but. It is made to understand that on the strength of NBW issued by the learned court below, the petitioners were arrested and forwarded to the court and they are in custody since 16.8.2021 and 17.08.2021 respectively. It is lastly contended that considering the above facts and the fact that some accused persons have been granted bail during the stage of investigation and later they were acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-!, Phulbani in S.T. Case No.111/39 of 2009 and S.T. No.167/438 of 2009, the petitioners should be released on bail with any conditions.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State contended that names of the petitioners appear in the FIR and also that of the other accused persons granted bail by this Court in 2009 and 2012 and admitted that on the strength of NBW, the petitioners were arrested as they were shown by absconders in the charge sheet.

¶22

Perused the copy of the judgment in S.T. Case No.111/39 of 2009 which reveals that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-!, Phulbani acquitted all the accused persons of the charges leveled against them except petitioner NoS.1 and 15 and directed them to undergo R.I. for six years for offence under Section 304-II and also sentenced them for other offences. It is also made to

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

suggest that this Court granted bail to some of the accused persons, who are allegedly involved in the incident. No doubt, the petitioners stayed away from the trial after being shown as the absconders. Having regard to the facts narrated above and considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that some of the accused persons similarly situated were granted bail by this Court and in the meanwhile, many were acquitted of the charges, the Court is of the considered view fact the accused persons should be released on bail with stringent conditions. Hence, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, it is directed that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) each with one solvent surety for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court below in seisin over of the matter with conditions that they shall appear before the court on each and every date of posting of the case till trial is concluded.

¶27

The BLAPL is disposed of.

¶28

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

¶29

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶30

TUDU

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Srinibash Pradhan @ Mallick v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinibash Pradhan @ Mallick 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

Badal@ Akash Mukhi Vs State of Odisha

Srikanta Mahanta @ Jhulu Vs State of Odisha

Soumyakant Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ratikanta Behera Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Surya Nahak Vs State of Odisha