Allowed

Chandan Behera @ Tutun v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Sept 2024BLAPL/8245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023. The High Court allowed bail to the petitioner, a 19-year-old accused, imposing conditions including police appearance every fortnight for six months, a bond with two sureties, and a cash security of Rs. 3,000.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.35,000/- with two solvent sureties and depositing a cash security of Rs.3,000/- subject to several conditions including fortnightly police appearance for si

Chandan Behera @ Tutun Vs State of Odisha — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.8245 of 2024

¶2

Chandan Behera @ Tutun

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. – Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Odisha

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

Represented By Adv. –

¶10

Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

¶13

ORDER 03.09.2024

¶14

Order No.

¶15

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the StateOpposite Party. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶17

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner for regular bail relating to Balasore Sadar P.S. Case No.284 of 2024, corresponding to C.T. Case No.464 of 2024, pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Balasore, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that earlier this matter was not before any other Bench of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

Petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2024. He further contended that the investigation has progressed substantially and the final charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon. Further, he contended that neither any TI Parade has been conducted in the meantime nor has anything been recovered from the possession of the present Petitioner. He further contended that the Petitioner was arrested in connection with another case and while he was in custody, he has been taken on remand in the present case. Further, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that initially the FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a young boy aged about 19 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contended that although the Petitioner is having some criminal antecedent, however, he is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while on bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the bail application of the Petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR are grave and serious in nature. It was further contended that the Petitioner is having several antecedents and the investigation is still on, therefore, in the event he is released on bail there is every likelihood he might abscond from justice which might lead to delay in conclusion of the trial. In such view of the matter, he submitted that the prayer for bail of the Petitioner be rejected at this juncture.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the surrounding facts as well as materials on record, and the fact that no recovery

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

has been made from the possession of the Petitioner and no T.I. Parade has been conducted as of now, and the fact that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown accused person, this Court is inclined to release the Petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin over the matter. Release of the Petitioner shall also be subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

i) he shall not be involved in any offence of similar nature while on bail;

¶26

ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or try to threaten or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever while on bail;

¶27

iii) he shall not make any default in attending the court during trial on each and every date without fail unless prevented by any sufficient cause; and

¶28

iv) he shall appear before the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight for a period of six months preferably on 'Sunday’ in between 10.00 A.M to 1.00 PM.

¶29

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

¶30

It is further directed that the bail granted to the Petitioner is subject to depositing of a cash security of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) before the learned Court in seisin over the matter, which shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank in interest

¶31

Page 3 of 4.

¶32

bearing account initially for a period of one year which will be renewable from time to time till conclusion of trial and the same shall be abide by the final outcome of the trial of the case.

¶33

The BLAPL is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶35

Debasis

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 04-Sep-2024 10:16:24

¶38

Page 4 of 4.

Chandan Behera @ Tutun v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Behera @ Tutun 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

Budha Behera @ Pabitra Behera Vs State of Odisha

Padmalava Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Purna Chandra Mohanta Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Badal Singh Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Pujhari Vs State of Odisha

Kunal @ Laxmidhar Dehury Vs State of Odisha