Allowed

Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Mar 2023BLAPL/1496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hon'ble Court granted bail to the accused petitioner in a drone-related offence near a temple, quashing the lower court's rejection based on Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, while incorporating strict reporting conditions regarding the ongoing investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to terms of equivalent to annual report to the Investigating Officer.

Animesh Chakraborty Vs State of Odisha — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.1496 of 2023

¶3

Animesh Chakraborty

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. R. Agarwal, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

¶10

ORDER 06.03.2023 Order No. 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R Case No.2579 of 2022 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C-1, Puri, arising out of Singhadwar P.S Case No.150 of 2022, for commission of offence under Sections 468/420/511 IPC and Section 10(2) of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Section 30(A)4)(C) of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954.

¶11

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri by order dated 02.02.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is a Youtuber, freelance photographer and a blogger having a channel

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

named as UNNIFIED. He is a registered drone operator and visits places of tourist interest and monuments and uploads its pictures and details on his Youtube channel.

¶14

It is further submitted that the Petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2023 on the allegation of flying drone over the temple of Lord Jagannath, Puri and uploading the video footage in his Youtube channel.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner with vehemence submits that even if the entire allegation of the prosecution is accepted at its face value, no case is made out against the Petitioner since the Petitioner had used a “Nano Drone” as such no licence is required for operating the same; yet he has obtained the licence for the same.

¶16

It is his further submission that he had not flown the drone in the earmarked red zone and it is the specific case of the Petitioner that such a red zone has not been notified either by the DGCA or by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

¶17

It is further submitted that soon after being cognizant of outraging sentiment of people across the board, he not only deleted the videos but also tendered public apology. It is also stated that he assured the cooperation as per the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. As his house was raided on 17.12.2022, he could not muster courage to respond such notice. After rejection of his anticipatory bail application by this Court by order dated 5.1.2023 in ABLAPL No.16622 of 2022, as he is in custody since 19.01.2023 as noted and since has no criminal proclivity, he may be released on bail.

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer during currency of investigation.

¶20

To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it would be apposite to quote the relevant provision of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, which are allegedly violated.

¶21

AIRCRAFT ACT, 1934

¶22

“10. Penalty for act in contravention of rule made under this Act –

¶23

xxx xxx xxx

¶24

(2) In making any other rule under section 5 or in maKing any rule under 5 [section 4, section 7], section 8, section 8A or section 8B, the Central Government may direct that a breach of it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a period which may extend to [two years, or with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees], or with both.”

¶25

SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE ACT, 1954

¶26

“ 30-A, Offences :
xxx xxx xxx
(4) WHOEVER :-
xxx xxx xxx

¶27

(c) takes inside the premises of the Temple any article knowing that the taking of such article is prohibited under any law or custom or by any declaration made and published in the prescribed manner by the Committee with due regard to the prevailing custodm, public health, morality or the religious sentiments of the public; shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two months or with fine which may extend to [one thousand rupees] or with both.”

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no violation of either Aircraft Act, 1934 or Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, extracted above and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

It is stated that the period of punishment under the Aircraft Act, 1934 is two years and under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 is two months. Since the Petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2023 and the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC are triable by Magistrate and punishment prescribed is seven years, further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is punitive.

¶31

At this stage in tune with the settled principles, this Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion regarding the contention of the Petitioner that no offence ex facie is made out. The same has to be considered at the appropriate stage.

¶32

This Court perused the materials. There is no iota of doubt that by his conduct the Petitioner has hurt the religious sentiment of the people at large. All the rituals of Lord Jagannath including “changing flag of Shree Mandir” which the Petitioner allegedly recorded through “Drone” have a revered place in the psyche of millions of faithful. Yet, considering the nature of allegation, substantial progress in investigation, period of pre-trial detention and in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773 , this Court directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the learned court in seisin over the matter to ensure his presence during trial.

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

To allay the legitimate apprehension of Mr. Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel that it would be difficult to secure the attendance of the Petitioner during the course of ongoing investigation since he ordinarily does not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin, additionally it is directed that the Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once every month on such date and time to be fixed by the learned Court in seisin till submission of final form. Certification of such appearance shall be submitted before the learned Court in seisin.

¶35

It shall be open to the Investigating Agency to seek

¶36

variance of this order in the event the Petitioner does not extend the desired cooperation.

¶37

Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.

¶38

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

¶39

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶40

PKS

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Animesh Chakraborty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Animesh Chakraborty 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhaya Kumar Nayak @ Abhaya Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Digal Vs State of Odisha

Bikram Rana Vs State of Odisha

Asish Kumar Pattanaik @ Aman Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Sahani Vs State of Odisha

Bhagabata Majhi Vs State of Odisha