Allowed

Sankirtan Ghivela @ Tidu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Jul 2023BLAPL/12964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected lower court. Petitioner sought bail forIPC offences (341,323,324,363,506,307) Arms Act (25,27). Court inclined to grant bail considering simple injuries and detention period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties. Bond includes conditions to appear at trial and report to Superintendent of Police.

Sankirtan Ghivela @ Tidu Vs State of Odisha — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.12964 of 2022

¶3

Sankirtan Ghivela @ Tidu …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.A. Dash, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

State of Odisha …. Opp. Party
Mr.P.B. Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
04.07.2023
05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

¶8

Order No.

¶9

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶11

learned counsel for the State.

¶12

This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Larambha P.S. Case No.183 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.902 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh for offences punishable under sections 341/323/324/ 363/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27 of Arms Act.

¶13

The petitioner moved an application for bail

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patnagarh, which was rejected on 15.12.2022.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.11.2022 and he has been charge sheeted under sections 341/323/324/363/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the injured has sustained simple injury and in view of the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application of the petitioner may be favourably considered.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is one criminal antecedent against the petitioner which is under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however he does not dispute that the injured B. Rudriya, Inspector in-charge of Larambha police station has sustained simple injury.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as the criminal antecedent against the petitioner under section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned, he has already been released on bail by this Court in the said case in CRLA No.1213 of 2022 as per order dated 01.03.2023. Learned counsel files the copy of the bail order, which is taken on record.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶22

Let the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court in seisin over the matter with further terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem just and proper including the conditions that the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each date to which the case is posted for trial, shall not try to tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not indulge in any criminal activities and shall appear before the Superintendent of Police, Bolangir once in a month, preferably, on the first Monday of the month in between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. except, if the date falls on the date of trial.

¶23

Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶24

The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶26

A free copy of the order be handed over to the

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

learned counsel for the State for onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police, Bolangir for compliance.

¶30

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶31

sipun

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 05-Jul-2023 11:48:06

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Sankirtan Ghivela @ Tidu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankirtan Ghivela @ Tidu 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

Aditya Kumar Rout @ Gudu Vs State of Odisha

Amar@Bhismadev Seth Vs State of Odisha

Nepal@Sagar@Mandip Kumar Pan Vs State of Orissa

Chinmaya Mangaraj @ Bablu Vs State of Odisha

Subash Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Santanu Kaudi Vs State of Odisha