Dismissed

Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Sept 2023ABLAPL/5461/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application for anticipatory bail where the complainant alleged an improper issuance of a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The court held that such a notice is statutorily conferred upon the investigating agency. Consequently, it concluded the bail application was not maintainable and disposed of the matter. Future material can be collected under Section 41(A)(3).

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was disposed of as not maintainable.

Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Anticipatory Bail | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

ABLAPL No.5461 of 2023

¶3

Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. S. Bahadur, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Advocate for the Informant

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

08.09.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the case diary and the internal committee report.

¶16

This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 294/353/354/354-A/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Informant, at the outset submitted that while this Court is session over the matter and the Petitioner was protected by the interim order dated 27.06.2023 the Investigating Officer has attempt to overleap the jurisdiction of this Court and had issued a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2023. In such view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the same is utter disregard of the order passed by this Court.

¶18

This Court on a careful examination the provisions contained in Section 41-A Cr.P.C. of the view that the power to issue notice for

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

appearance before the Police Officer is conferred upon the investigating agency by virtue of the provisions contained in the Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Therefore, such power of the Investigating Agency cannot be questioned the courts of the investigation. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the allegation made by learned counsel appearing for the Informant may not be correct. Further, keeping in view the development of the present case that a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has already been issued before the accused, this Court is of the considered view that the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Accordingly the same is disposed of.

¶21

It is further made clear that in the event any further materials appear before the Police that is in the shape of report of the Internal Complaint Committee the same can very well be taken up care of by the Investigating Officer under Section 41(A) (3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Personal appearance of the Bhadrak S.P. is being dispensed with.

¶23

Accordingly, the ABLAPL is disposed of.

¶24

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶25

Anil

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Sep-2023 17:31:21

Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo 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

Narahari Baral Vs State of Odisha

Gajendra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Adaita Chandra Rout Vs State of Odisha

Debendra Palai Vs State of Odisha

Swagat Biswal @ Papuni Vs State of Odisha

Bhaskar Chandra Bal Vs State of Odisha