Disposed¶18

Uttam Munshi v. Republic of India (Cbi)

Orissa HC6 Mar 2024BLAPL/9511/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/bail application disposal — S.439 Cr.P.C.; renewal of bail prayer permitted citing intervening developments; CBI case FIR No.RC.30/S/204-Kol, T.R. No.3 of 2023, SPE No.25 of 2014; offences under IPC Sections 411/414/471/120-B/420/409 read with Sections 4/5/6 PCMCS (Banning) Act; Special Judge CBI-1 Bhubaneswar; petitioner Uttam Munshi; counsel Mr.P.C. Mohapatra; Special P.P. Mr.S.Nayk; single bench of Justice D. Dash; order dated 06.03.2024; no merits adjudication, no case law relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer for grant of bail before the Court in seisin of the case, citing the developments that have taken place in the meantime; the application itself was not decided on merits. ¶18

Uttam Munshi Vs Republic of India (Cbi) — Bail and Remand | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.RC.30/S/204-Kol (corresponding to T.R. No.3 of 2023 arising out of SPE No.25 of 2014) for offences under Sections 411/414/471/120-B/420/409 IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of PCMCS (Banning) Act, should be released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Since several developments have taken place in the case after the Petitioner last moved the trial Court, the application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is not decided on merits but stands disposed of, granting the Petitioner liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the Court in seisin of the case, citing those developments.

¶18

Key takeaways

Advisory observation: if the Petitioner renews his bail prayer, the Trial Court would do well to consider it on its own merit, further taking into account the developments that have taken place in the meantime in their proper perspective, and dispose of the same early in accordance with law.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court at Cuttack (D. Dash, J.), Order dated 06.03.2024 in BLAPL No.9511 of 2023 — Uttam Munshi v. Republic of India (CBI). Bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner in custody in FIR No.RC.30/S/204-Kol (T.R. No.3 of 2023, arising out of SPE No.25 of 2014) concerning offences under Sections 411/414/471/120-B/420/409 IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of PCMCS (Banning) Act, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, CBI-1, Bhubaneswar. Noting the Petitioner had last moved the trial Court on 05.05.202 (as printed) and that the CBI's affidavit and the Petitioner's rejoinder disclose several intervening developments, the Court declined to decide the bail plea afresh and simply disposed of the application with liberty to renew the prayer before the trial Court citing those developments; the trial Court was advised to consider the renewed prayer on its own merit, in light of the intervening developments, and dispose of it early in accordance with law. No precedent cited; no quantum involved.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

BLAPL No.9511 of 2023

¶3

Uttam Munshi …. Petitioner Mr.P.C. Mohapatra Advocate -versus-

¶4

Republic of India (CBI)

¶5

…. Opp. Party Mr.S.Nayk, Special P.P. for CBI

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

Order No.

ORDER 06.03.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

¶12

The Petitioner, who is custody in connection with FIR No.RC.30/S/204-Kol corresponding to T.R. No.3 of 2023 arising out of SPE No.25 of 2014 on the file of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, CBI1, Bhubaneswar running for commission of offence under sections 411/414/471/120-B/420/409 of the IPC read with section 4/5/6 of PCMCS (Banning) Act, by filing this application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C, has prayed for his release on bail.

¶13

Heard, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special P.P. for the CBI.

¶14

Keeping in view the submissions made, at the outset, the order by which the learned Court in seisin of the case has rejected the prayer of the Petition for grant of bail being gone

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

through, it is found that the Petitioner had last moved the said Court on 05.05.202. The averments taken in the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party as well as the rejoinder to the said affidavit filed by the Petitioner reveal several developments, in connection with the case, to have taken place in the meantime.

¶18

In that view of the matter, this application stands disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to renew his prayer for grant of bail before the Court in seisin of the case citing all such developments, which have taken place in the meantime for their consideration in proper perspective.

¶19

It is needless to observe that in the event, such a move is made, the Trial Court would do well to consider the same on its own merit; further taking into account all such developments, which have taken place in the meantime in their proper perspective and dispose of the same early in accordance with law.

¶20

Issue urgent certified of this order as per rules.

¶21

(D.Dash) Judge

¶22

Basu

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 13-Mar-2024 19:04:52

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Uttam Munshi v. Republic of India (Cbi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Munshi v. Republic of India (Cbi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayadeb Bhujabal @ Purna Bhujabal Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Maharathi Vs State of Odisha

Arun Ku.Sahu Vs Prabhat Ch.Chand

Prutwiraj Kanhar @ Pruthiraj Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Chandramani Bagarty Vs State of Odisha