This judgment dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.. The court refused to reconsider the prayer in light of the petitioner's role, materials on record, and earlier orders.
The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ABLAPL NO.6 OF 2022
Santosh Kumar Samantray @ …. Petitioner Tukuna
Mr.A. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha
…. Opposite Party Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH ORDER
17.03.2022
Order No.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
against the Petitioner with other surrounding circumstances; and on going through the earlier orders dated 25.11.2020 & 24.02.2020 passed in ABLAPL No.14043 of 2020 and BLAPL No.1107 of 2021 respectively, I am not inclined to re-consider the prayer grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
Basu
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Fategarh P.S. Case No.184 of 2020.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar Samantray
State of Odisha
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
