Allowed

Uddhav Pangi@ Urdhaba v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Aug 2022BLAPL/9112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a murder case, the High Court of Orissa granted bail to petitioners not named in the FIR. The court noted their long custody duration, lack of specific allegations against them, and absconding by the state, allowing release subject to trial court conditions.

What did the court decide?

Respondent released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the court in seisin of the matter.

Uddhav Pangi@ Urdhaba Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No. 9112 of 2021

¶3

Uddhav Pangi@ Urdhaba and others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda,

¶6

Advocate

¶7

-Versus -

¶8

State of Odisha

¶9

…. Opposite Party Mr. P. Tripathy, Additional Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_
03.08.2022

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶16

The Petitioners are in custody since 22.08.2021 in connection with Boipariguda P.S. Case No.79 of 2009 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 35 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore for the alleged commission of the offence under Sections 147/148/323/326/302/201/149 of I.P.C. 4. The allegation is that on 19^th October, 2009, three persons being armed with deadly weapons and being associated with more than 100 persons committed murder of one Indra Harijan and also assaulted one Rooty Harijan causing bodily injuries. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have not been named in the F.I.R. and there is no material to show their complicity in the occurrence.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the Petitioners had absconded for a long period and hence, they should not be shown any leniency.

¶19

Having regard to the submissions made, the materials on record, the period of detention already undergone and the fact that the Petitioners are neither named in the F.I.R. nor any specific overt act has been attributed to them, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail. Let the petitioners be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the court in seisin over the matter may deem fit and proper to impose including the condition that they shall personally appear before the trial Court on each date of posting of the case, failing which appropriate adverse orders may be passed by the court

¶20

below as deem fit and proper.

¶21

BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
( Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge

¶23

B.C. Tudu

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Uddhav Pangi@ Urdhaba v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uddhav Pangi@ Urdhaba 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

Biju Barik@ Ajju Barik Vs State of Odisha

Biswajit Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Tusil Hembram @ Tasil @ Tushil Vs State of Odisha

Pustaram Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Sanyasi Digal Vs State of Odisha

Rabi@ Rabindra Marandi Vs State of Odisha